Delhi District Court
State vs Wasim on 29 August, 2025
DLSE010067772021
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
SESSIONS CASE No. 303/2021
FIR No. 156/2021
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin
STATE
Versus
1. WASEEM
S/o Mohd. Noor
R/o H. No. 210, Nizam Nagar,
Basti Hazrat, Nizamuddin
New Delhi
2. RIHANA
S/o Naim
R/o S-5/72, Nizam Nagar,
Basti Hazrat, Nizamuddin
New Delhi
Date of Institution : 23.07.2021
Date of Reserving Order : 28.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 1/32
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.29
13:01:01
+0530
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts & Investigation
1. As per chargesheet, on 27.04.2021, upon the receipt of DD No. 20A, which was recorded regarding an incident of firing of gunshot, SI C.L. Meena and HC Jarnail Singh reached at Nizam Nagar Basti, Hazrat Nizamuddin and noticed a lot of blood spilled on the road. Four empty cartridges and six live rounds were also lying at the spot. Two pairs of footwear and two chairs were also available at the spot. Upon making inquiries, SI C.L. Meena learnt that one male and one female had sustained bullet injuries, both of whom have been removed to a hospital. SI C.L. Meena called the crime team at the spot. A Crime Team comprised of HC Rakam Singh and photographer Ct. Amit arrived at the spot and took photographs. The above said articles and blood samples were lifted from spot and were seized by police. In the meantime, DD No. 31A was delivered to SI C.L. Meena, whereafter he proceeded to Safdarjung hospital, leaving HC Jarnail Singh at the spot. At Safdarjung hospital, SI C.L. Meena discovered that injured Sahadatt was admitted against MLC No. 131490/21 and was unfit for statement. One Shaina Begum had been declared as brought dead vide MLC No. 131507/21. SI C.L. Meena could not discover any eye witness of the incident. Accordingly, he returned to the spot and met one Aisha. Said Aisha made the following statement:-
"बयान अजाने आईशा W/O नदीम R/o H. No. 132, निज़ाम नगर, बस्ती हज़रत निज़ामुद्दीन, दिल्ली, Age-26 Yrs., Mob. No. 9717698721 बयान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर रहती हूँ और Housewife हूँ। शाइना मेरे पति कि बहन है और आज वो बाहर गली में कुर्सी पर बैठी हुई थी। और वही शहादत भी खड़ा हुआ था। वहीं पर LOVLEEN रिहाना और वसीम दोनों साइना वाजी के साथ बहसा बहसी कर रहे Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 2/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:10 +0530 थे। और रिहाना और वसीम दोनों साइना बाजी से कह रहे थे कि जब वसीम ने तुमसे शादी करी थी और तुम्हारे पेट में बच्चे IVF से रखवाए थे। तब तुमने चुपचाप शराफत शेख से शादी क्यों की थी। तो साड़ना कह रही थी की तुम भी तो रिहाना के साथ रहते हो। तब वसीम ने कहा कि बच्चो को मेरा नाम देना होगा। तब साइना ने मना कर दिया कि मैं तुम्हारे साथ नहीं रह सकती हूँ। और बच्चे भी नहीं दगं ू ी। तब रिहाना ने वसीम से कहा कि तुम साइना को आज खत्म कर दो। मैं तुमसे शादी कर लूँगी। मैं अंदर गली से सब कुछ देख सुन रही थी और औरते भी सुन रही थी। तब वसीम ने रिहाना के कहने पर अपने पास से दो पिस्टल निकाली और अपनी दोनों पिस्तोलों से गोली चला चला कर साइना और शहादत को घायल कर दिया और मैंने रुकने के लिए चिल्लाया तो मेरी तरफ पिस्तोल तान दी थी। फिर मौके से रिहाना और वसीम भाग गए। तब में डर कर अंदर घुस गयी थी। तब पता चला कि साइना और शहादत को इमरान और धोबीर हॉस्पिटल ले गए थे। मैं भी हॉस्पिटल गयी थी। जहाँ पर पता चला कि साइना बाजी खत्म हो गयी है और शहादत का इलाज़ हो रहा है। मैं घर वापिस घर पर आई थी। मैंने अपनी आँ खों से देखा कि वसीम ने रिहाना के कहने पर साइना बाजी और शहादत पहले से बनाई गयी योजना के अनुसार जान से मारने की नियत से गोलियां चलाई थी। और मर्डर किया था। आपने मौके पर आकर मेरा बयान लिखा जो पढ़ लिया सुन लिया ठीक है SD English"
2. In the meantime, Duty Officer, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin informed SI C.L. Meena that one Waseem, who had shot said Sahadatt and Shaina Begum, has surrendered in the PS alongwith two pistols. Thereafter, on the basis of above statement made by said Ayesha as well as the contents of MLCs and other factors noticed by him, SI C.L. Meena prepared a rukka for registration of FIR u/s 302/307/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Investigation was then handed over to Insp. Kumar Jiweshwar. The Duty Officer, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin produced said Waseem before Insp. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 3/32 2025.08.29 13:01:14 +0530 Kumar Jiweshwar, who was interrogated and was formally arrested in the present FIR. The pistols produced by accused Waseem were seized alongwith the live cartridges available therein. Police conducted a search for accused Rihana, who was found in the area surrounding the spot of incident. She was also arrested in the present FIR. On 28.04.2021, Police learnt that the injured Sahadatt expired during the course of treatment at Safdarjung hospital. After usual investigation, police chargesheeted both Waseem as well as Rihana u/s 302/120B/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
3. The present chargesheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as Section 302 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions.
Charge
4. Ld. Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case against the accused persons and accordingly, on 26.05.2022, Charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC, Section 302IPC R/w Section 120-B IPC was framed against the accused persons to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. An Additional Charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Waseem to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined 31 witnesses in total.
i). PW1 Dr. Uday Agarwal- He proved the injuries noticed by him on the person of deceased Sahadatt upon his arrival in Safdurjung Hospital at the relevant time. He also proved the death summary prepared by him LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 4/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:18 +0530 as Ex. PW1/A.
ii). PW2 Dr. Preeti- She proved the MLC of deceased Sahadatt and deceased Shaina as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively.
iii). PW3 Dr. Chavi Gupta- She deposed to have declared the deceased Shaina as 'brought dead' on the MLC Ex. PW2/B.
iv). PW4 Aisha- She is the informant.
v). PW5 Md. Dhobir- He identified the dead body of deceased Shaina.
vi). PW6 Arif- He identified the dead body of deceased Shaina.
vii). PW7 Rahim- He deposed to have identified the dead body of deceased Sahadatt during the course of investigation.
viii). PW8 Dr. Sainulabid A- He deposed about having examined deceased Sahadatt at the relevant time along with PW-1 Dr. Uday Agarwal.
ix). PW9 ACP Mukesh Kumar Jain- He deposed about visiting the spot of incident on 15.07.2021 and about preparing a scaled site plan Ex. PW9/A.
x). PW10 SI Kuldeep Singh- He is the duty officer. He also deposed about surrender of accused Waseem in the PS alongwith 02 pistols.
xi). PW11 Dr. Sagarika Agarwal- She is the head of Indira IVF clinic, Lajpat Nagar. She deposed that deceased Shaina was taking treatment from their center for IVF.
xii). PW12 SI Madhu Yadav- She deposed about apprehension of accused Rihana from a park at the relevant time and about her formal arrest vide memo Ex. PW12/A.
xiii). PW 13 HC Rakam Singh- He is the fingprint proficient and Incharge of Crime Team. He deposed about items lifted from the spot of LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 5/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:21 +0530 incident.
xiv). PW 14 HC Jarnail Singh- He is the police official accompanying the Investigating Officers in the present case.
xv). PW15 SI C L Meena- He is the first Investigating Officer of this case.
xvi). PW16 ASI Bedi Ram- He deposed about the handing over of dead body of deceased Shaina to her husband Md. Dhobir on 28.04.2021 after the conduct of postmortem.
xvii). PW 17 HC Ajeet Kumar- He is the police official accompanying the Investigating Officers in the present case. xviii). PW18 SI Akash- He deposed about handing over of dead body of deceased Shaina to her husband Md. Dhobir on 28.04.2021 after the conduct of postmortem. He also deposed about the handing over of dead body of deceased Sahadatt on 30.04.2021 after the conduct of postmortem.
xix). PW19 Dr. Sanchal Sethi- She deposed about examination of deceased Sahadatt and deceased Shaina Begum on 27.04.2021. xx). PW20 Dr. Sarabjeet Singh, FSL- He deposed about receipt of 08 parcels for biological and DNA examination. He proved his scientific report prepared after the said examination as PW20/A. xxi). PW21 Ms. Prerna Lakra- She is the Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini. She conducted ballistic examination of the weapons and ammunitions recovered by police and proved her detailed report as Ex. PW21/A. xxii). PW22 Ct. Mukesh- He also deposed about the handing over of dead body of deceased Sahadatt on 30.04.2021 after the conduct of postmortem.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.29 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 6/32 13:01:24 +0530 xxiii). PW23 Md. Abid- He provided to police the DVR which captured the CCTV footage of the entire incident. xxiv). PW24 Ct. Bajrang- He collected postmortem report of deceased Shaina Begum in terms of the directions of Investigating Officer. xxv). PW25 Rajeev Vashist, Nodal Officer- He proved the E-KYC of the mobile numbers belonging to accused Rihana and accused Waseem as Ex. PW25/P3 and Ex. PW25/P5. He also proved the CDRs of said mobile phones along with certificate issued u/s 65 B of IEA. xxvi). PW26 Praveen Kumar, Nodal Officer- He proved E-KYC of another mobile number of accused Rihana as Ex. PW26/P2. He also proved the CDR of the said mobile number along with its supporting certificate u/s 65 B of IEA.
xxvii). PW27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar- He is the second Investigating Officer of this case.
xxviii).PW28 HC Amit Singh- He deposed to have clicked the photographs of the spot of incident on 27.04.2021. xxix). PW29 Sh. Surender Chauhdary, IPS- He proved the Sanction granted by him u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of accused Waseem. xxx). PW30 Dr. C P Singh, Assistant Director, FSL- He examined the DVR containing the CCTV footage of the incident and proved his report Ex. PW 30/P1 xxxi). PW31 Inspector Ravinder Singh- He is the third Investigating Officer in this case.
6. The following documents were proved by the prosecution during the course of trial:-
LOVLEEN Description Exhibits
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date: 2025.08.29
13:01:28 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 7/32
Death summary prepared by Dr. Uday Ex.PW1/A Aggarwal MLC of patient Sahadutt Ex.PW2/A MLC of patient Shaina Bagum Ex.PW2/B Handing over memo of Shaina Ex.PW4/A The complaint Ex.4/B Dead Body identification memo of Ex.PW5/A deceased Shaina Begum.
Election I-card Ex.PW5/B Dead body identification memo of Ex.PW6/A deceased Shaina Begum Copy of Aadhar card of PW-6 Ex.PW6/B Dead body identification memo of Ex.PW7/A deceased Sahadat Handing over memo Ex.PW7/B Site plan Ex.PW9/A. Computerized copy of GD No. 20A Ex.PW10/A Computerized copy of GD No. 31A Ex.PW10/B Copy of FIR Ex.PW10/C Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Ex.PW10/D Act Endorsement on the application of police Ex.PW11/A official Printout of the photograph Ex.PW11/B Arrest memo of accused Rihana Ex.PW12/A Personal search memo of accused Rihana Ex.PW12/B Disclosure statement of accused Rihana Ex.PW12/C Scene of Crime Report Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of two chairs Ex.PW14/A LOVLEEN Seizure memo of four pairs of slippers Ex.PW14/B Earth control A Ex.PW14/C Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 8/32 13:01:31 +0530 Earth control B Ex.PW14/D Bloodstained A (earth) Ex.PW14/E Blood stained (earth) Ex.PW14/F Blood sample A Ex.PW14/G Blood sample B Ex.PW14/H One bullet seizure memo Ex.PW14/I Live cartridges Ex.PW14/J Empty Cartridges Ex.PW14/K Seizure memo of exhibits of deceased Ex.PW14/L Saina and Sahadat Ex.PW14/M Copy of RC No. 78/21/21 Ex.PW14/N (deposition of of exhibits to FSL Rohini) (OSR) Copy of acknowledgment of SFSL Ex.PW14/O (OSR) Copy of RC No. 79/21/21 Ex.PW14/P (deposition of of exhibits to FSL Rohini) (OSR) Copy of acknowledgment of SFSL Ex.PW14/Q (OSR) RUKKA Ex.PW15/A Seizure memo of exhibits of deceased Ex.PW16/A Saina Begum Sketch of pistols, Ex.PW17/A magazines and Ex.PW17/B live cartridges Ex.PW17/C Ex.PW17/D Seizure memo of these items Ex.PW17/E Arrest memo of accused Waseem Ex.PW17/F Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW17/G Waseem Seizure memo of DVR Ex.PW17/H Disclosure statement of accused Waseem Ex.PW17/I Pointing out memo Ex.PW17/J Six sealed parcels containing exhibits Ex.PW17/K sample seal forwarding letter to deposit at FSL Rohini (copy of RC No 82/21/21) Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.29FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 9/32 13:01:36 +0530 Copy of acknowledgment Ex.PW17/L Pistol Ex.P1 Cartridges Ex.P2 (colly) Pistol Ex.P3 Cartridges Ex.P4 (colly) DVR Ex.F-5 Brief facts Ex.PW18/A Request form Ex.PW18/B Form No. 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW18/C Brief facts Ex.PW18/D Request form Ex.PW18/E Form No. 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW18/F Seizure memo of two sealed exhibit of Ex.PW18/G deceased alongwith two sample seals Injured Shaina Begum was examined by Ex.PW19/A Dr. Preeti under supervision of Dr. Saanchal Sethi vide MRN 21-0031507 Death report of Sahina Begum Ex.PW19/B Report qua Biological and DNA Ex.PW20/A examination with allelic data.
Report qua ballistic examination Ex.PW21/A containing opinion.
Forwarding letter Ex.PW21/B Request letter of IO for CAF and CDR of Ex.PW25/P1 mobile no. 8448663028 & 9205947269 Forwarding letter of CAF and CDR of Ex.PW25/P2 above said mobile no. to the IO.
E-KYC of 9205947269 Ex.PW25/P3
CDR of 9205947269 Ex.PW25/P4.
LOVLEEN
Digitally signed FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 10/32
by LOVLEEN
Date: 2025.08.29
13:01:40 +0530
D-KYC of mobile no. 8448663028 Ex.PW25/P5
CDR of mobile no. 8448663028 Ex.PW25/P6
Certificate u/s 65B of IEA Ex.PW25/P7
Request letter of IO for CAF and CDR of Ex.PW26/P1 mobile no. 7982509435 D-KYC of mobile no. 7982509435 Ex.PW26/P2 CDR of mobile no. 7982509435 Ex.PW26/P3 Certificate u/s 65B of IEA Ex.PW26/P4 Photographs Ex.PW28/P1 to Ex.PW28/P26 Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act Ex.PW29/P1 Examination report dated 17.06.2022 Ex.PW30/P1 Facial image recognition Report of Cyber Forensic Division Ex.PW30/P2 Certification of Kailash Chand u/s 65B Ex.PW30/P3 of IEA Supplementary chargesheet with FSL Ex.PW30/P1 report, and certificate. Ex.PW30/P2 and Ex.PW30/P3
7. During the course of trial, accused persons admitted the following documents / facts u/s 294 Cr.P.C.:-
Name Description Exhibits Statement of He Made call at 100 number GD Entry Asgar Hussain (recorded in PS vide GD Entry No. 0020A No. 0020A) is Ex.PW-
10/A Statement of He admitted injured / deceased MLC is Mr. Imran Sahadatt at Safdarjung hospital Ex.PW2/A vide MLC No. 29057.
LOVLEEN Statement of He identified dead body of Statement is Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 11/32 2025.08.29 13:01:43 +0530 Mohd. Salam deceased Sahadatt on Ex.P-2 30.04.2021.
Death Dr. Krishan Rajbhar prepared Ex.PW1/A
summary and the said documents. &
death report of Ex.P-3
deceased
Sahadatt
PM report of Prepared by Dr. Aditya Anand Ex.P-4 & deceased Ex.P-5 Sahadatt and deceased Shaina MLC of Prepared by Dr. Nishant Ex.PW2/A deceased Priyadarshani.
Sahadatt
8. Prosecution evidence was closed on 10.03.2025.
Statement of Accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C & Defence Evidence
9. On 22.03.2025, both the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein incriminating material appearing in evidence against them were put to them. Accused persons claimed that it is a false case and that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Sarafat Sheikh. They preferred to lead evidence in their defence.
10. DW-1 Bhim, Ahlmad in the Court of Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts proved the contents of a chargesheet filed in FIR No 96/2020 PS Crime Branch against one Sarafat Sheikh as Ex.PW1/DA and Ex.PW- 1/DB.
Arguments
11. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the prosecution has LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 12/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:46 +0530 established its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and prays for convicting the accused persons. He further submits that the accused persons planned and executed their devious scheme of killing victims Sahadatt and Shaina Begum. He further submits that accused Waseem had surrendered himself in the PS with the pistols used to kill the above said victims soon after the incident. He further submits that accused Waseem had made an extra judicial confession at the time of his surrender. He further submits that the shrapnel / bullet recovered from the dead bodies of the victims are directly connected with the said pistols surrendered by accused Waseem. He further submits that prosecution has proved the motive of the accused persons. He further submits that the availability of accused persons at the spot of incident is proved by their mobile phone locations. He prays that the accused persons may be convicted.
12. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution case is liable to be discarded for multiple reasons. It is argued:-
a) that the sole eye witness of the incident (PW-4 Aisha) has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, which factor is sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution ;
b) that the accused persons are not liable to be convicted on account of multiple infirmities in the circumstantial evidence led on record by the prosecution. He lists the said infirmities in the following fashion:-
(i) that prosecution claims that accused Waseem is the husband LOVLEEN of deceased Shaina and in this regard prosecution relies upon Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:51 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 13/32 the oral testimony of PW-11 Dr. Sagarika Aggarwal, however, PW-5 Mohd. Dhobir claims that he was the husband of deceased Shaina. The above contradiction deals a harsh blow to the case of the prosecution. That apart, the documents sought to be proved through the oral testimony of PW-11 Dr. Sagarika Aggarwal were prepared much after the incident and are without the support of the requisite certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act;
(ii) that prosecution has failed to explain as to why accused Waseem would arrange IVF treatment for the deceased Shaina if PW-5 Dhobir was her husband and who in fact was handed over the dead body of the deceased after the incident;
(iii) that deceased Shaina was the wife of one Sarafat Sheikh who got the accused persons falsely implicated in the present case and that the first call made to the police after the incident was by a henchman namely Asgar of said Sarafat Sheikh. The same is made out from the fact that said Asgar lives quite far from the spot of incident;
(iv) that accused Waseem did not have any physical relationship with deceased Shaina at all. In fact, prosecution has not placed any substantial material to prove the said fact;
(v) that till date the prosecution has not explained as to why PW-4 Aisha did not make the 100 number call immediately after the incident;
(vi) that prosecution has not explained as to why the factum of surrender of accused Waseem with the 02 pistols was not LOVLEEN incorporated in the FIR despite an admission that said accused Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 14/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:01:54 +0530 had surrendered at least one hour prior to the registration of FIR;
(vii) that prosecution has not explained as to why no DD entry was recorded in the PS regarding the alleged surrender of accused Waseem alongwith pistols in the PS at the relevant time;
(viii) that prosecution has not placed on record any CCTV footage regarding the surrender of accused Waseem with the said 02 pistols in the PS at the relevant time;
(ix) that Section 27 Indian Evidence Act is not attracted in the present case against the accused Waseem as Police did not recover the said 02 pistols;
(x) that the said pistols did not reflect any finger print of accused Waseem, which completely belies the case of the prosecution;
(xi) that prosecution has not explained as to why accused Waseem was not taken to a Magistrate immediately after his alleged surrender for the purpose of recording of his confession u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
(xii) that PW-17 HC Ajeet Kumar has not specified the exact time of arrival of accused Waseem at the PS at the relevant time;
(xiii) that the CCTV footage of the alleged incident is liable to be discarded summarily on account of the fact that the certificate issued u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act in support of the same was not issued by the person in whose control the LOVLEEN said electronic system fell;Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.29 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 15/32 13:02:00 +0530
(xiv) that the CDRs proved by the prosecution against the accused persons are irrelevant as the victims as well as the accused persons were staying in close vicinity - within 50 yards of each other;
c). that the case of the prosecution is faulty and bears multiple inconsistencies, which factors must be read in favour of the accused persons and they may be acquitted.
13. In rebuttal, Ld. Addl. PP submits that the role of the accused persons in the commission of the crime has been clearly made out from the fact that accused Waseem surrendered in the PS alongwith 02 pistols used in the commission of crime soon after the occurrence of incident. He further submits that accused persons have failed to account for the possession of accused Waseem over the said two pistols till date. He further submits that the conduct of accused Waseem is sufficient to convict him of the offences he stands charged with.
DISCUSSION
14. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the case file as well.
Case of Prosecution
15. As per chargesheet, at the relevant date, time and place, accused persons were having an oral argument with deceased Shaina in the presence of deceased Sahadatt. The parties were having an argument about the paternity of the pregnancy (fetus) deceased Shaina was carrying - accused Waseem was angrily questioning deceased Shaina as LOVLEEN to why she has secretly contracted a marriage with Sarafat Sheikh Digitally signed FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 16/32 by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:08 +0530 despite the fact that she was previously married to him and was also pregnant from him. Accused Waseem was insisting that the paternity of unborn kids must be declared in his favour but the deceased Shaina refused to do so. Accused Rihana then exhorted accused Waseem to eliminate deceased Shaina while promising that she would marry him instead. Suddenly, accused Waseem whipped out two pistols and discharged them at deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt, leading to their untimely deaths.
I. Direct/Ocular Evidence
16. In order to prove the above allegations, prosecution examined PW- 4 Aisha, who was projected as an eye witness of the above incident. However, PW-4 Aisha turned completely hostile to the case of the prosecution. She failed to depose anything incriminating against either of the accused persons. She deposed that she arrived at the scene after she was informed by her child that deceased Shaina was lying injured in front of her house, whereafter she went there and discovered that deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt had sustained gun shot injuries and the accused Rihana was sitting besides them and was weeping. She completely disowned the statement she allegedly made to the police on the basis of which the present FIR was registered (said statement is reproduced in para 1 of this judgement). She was cross-examined at length on behalf of State but she did not support the prosecution in any respect. Consequently, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed in its endeavour to prove its case against the accused persons on the basis of the oral testimony of PW-4 Aisha.
II. Circumstantial Evidence LOVLEEN 17. Prosecution claims that despite witness PW-4 Aisha turning Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 17/32 13:02:13 +0530 hostile during trial, the entire case put forth against the accused persons does not fail outrightly. Prosecution alleges that the circumstantial evidence available on record points towards the direct involvement and culpability of the accused persons in the murder of deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt. Prosecution elaborates that it has placed sufficient materials on record to prove that accused Waseem had surrendered in the PS along with 02 pistols used to murder deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt soon after the commission of crime. Prosecution claims that as per report of FSL, the said 02 pistols were indeed used against deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt at the relevant time. Prosecution further claims that the motive of the accused persons to eliminate both the victims at the relevant time was a lingering dispute regarding the paternity of the fetus the deceased Shaina was carrying at the time of her death. Prosecution claims that accused Waseem was previously married to deceased Shaina and she was also pregnant from accused Waseem but recently before her death, deceased Shaina had contracted another marriage with one Sharafat Sheikh. Accused Waseem, being the father of said fetus carried by deceased Shaina, was insisting upon deceased Shaina that she declare the same in his favour. However, deceased Shaina refused to comply with the said demand of accused Waseem, whereafter, accused Rihana exhorted accused Waseem to eliminate deceased Shaina. Prosecution claims that it has also examined one doctor from the IVF Center who has clearly deposed that accused Waseem was facilitating the pregnancy treatment of deceased Shaina while claiming to be her husband. As per prosecution, the above factors are clearly indicative of the culpability of the accused persons.
LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 18/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:18 +0530 Motive
18. In order to prove the above said motive of the accused person, prosecution examined PW11 Dr. Sagarika Agarwal, Center Head, Indira IVF Clinic, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. PW11 Dr. Sagarika Agarwal deposed during trial that deceased Shaina came to their center on 10.07.2020 for IVF treatment and was registered under the ID FSL DLV
40. At that time, accused Waseem was accompanying her as 'husband'. She placed on record a printout of the photograph of deceased Shaina and accused Waseem, which was taken at the reception of their center at the time of registration of their case. The said printout is Ex. PW11/B..
18.1. However, this Court notes that there are multiple infirmities in the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, prosecution has not placed on record any document which proves that accused Waseem got married to deceased Shaina before the incident. Admittedly, prosecution has not placed any document on record which reflects that deceased Shaina was pregnant at the time of the incident. Admittedly, prosecution has not placed on record any record of the treatment papers of deceased Shaina from the said IVF Center. Admittedly, the said printout Ex. PW11/B (of photograph) is not accompanied by any certificate u/s 65 B of IEA. Accordingly, the same is not to be read by this Court as per law. Given the above infirmities, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the claim of the prosecution that accused Waseem had impregnated deceased Shaina before the occurrence of the present incident. The same creates a dent in the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged motive of the accused Waseem. Be that as it may, the case of the prosecution regarding the LOVLEEN allegation that accused Waseem was the husband of deceased Shaina, is Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:22 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 19/32 liable to be disbelieved on account of the statements made by other witnesses examined by prosecution itself during trial. It would be appropriate to refer to the statements of PW5 Md. Dhobir and PW6 Arif, both of whom have deposed clearly and categorically that deceased Shaina was the wife of PW5 Md. Dhobir. In fact both the said witnesses have also deposed that the dead body of deceased Shaina was handed over to PW5 Md. Dhobir for last rites. In the facts and circumstances, this Court could safely hold that the case of the prosecution regarding the 'motive' of the accused persons could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Surrender of accused Waseem and Recovery of Pistols & Live Ammunition
19. PW-17 HC Ajeet Kumar has deposed during trial that on 27.04.2021 he was deployed as a sentry from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. Inter alia, he deposed that during the said period accused Waseem arrived at PS H.N. Din and told him that he had shot the deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt. Thereafter, he (HC Ajeet Kumar) took him to the Duty Officer (PW10 SI Kuldeep Singh), where accused Waseem handed over 02 pistols to the Duty Officer. Immediately, the Duty Officer informed the SHO concerned as well as PW-15 SI CL Meena. Duty officer then handed over the said pistols to IO / PW-27 Kumar Jiweshwar, who then seized the same and live cartridges vide memo Ex. PW17/E. PW-17 HC Ajeet Kumar correctly identified the accused Waseem as well as the said two pistols.
20. PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh has deposed during trial that on LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 20/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:27 +0530 27.04.2021 he was working as duty officer at PS H.N Din between 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. Inter alia, PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh deposed that before the registration of present FIR at 03:15 PM, accused Waseem had come to the PS and had surrendered before him (PW-10) with two pistols while stating that he (accused Waseem) had shot deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt and killed them. PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh correctly identified the accused Waseem as well as the said two pistols.
21. PW-27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar has deposed that on 27.04.2021 he was handed over investigation of this case after the registration of FIR. Immediately, thereafter, PW15 C L Meena and PW10 SI Kuldeep Singh handed him accused Waseem along with two pistols and some live cartridges. Inter alia, PW27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar deposed that he made inquiries from accused Waseem, who confessed about his involvement in the commission of crimes. PW-27 Insp. Kumar Jiweshwar correctly identified the accused Waseem as well as the said two pistols.
22. All the said witnesses were cross examined on behalf of accused persons on the said aspects. However, they did not betray any signs of falsity. They seem to have withstood the test of cross-examination. They flatly denied all the suggestions given by accused persons which were contrary to the case of prosecution. This Court does not find any material in their oral testimony which could be of any assistance to the accused persons vis-a-vis the said aspects. In fact the cross-examination of said witnesses reflects that accused Waseem had made several relevant admissions. The relevant extracts of cross-examination of said witnesses LOVLEEN Digitally signed by FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 21/32 LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:31 +0530 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"..................Accused had came before me prior to one hour before registration of FIR. I had not lodged any separate GD entry regarding the surrendering of accused Wasim ............................................... ......"
(Cross examination of PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh dated 27.08.2022).
"It is correct that when accused Wasim surrendered before me I did not make entry in this regard.................................................. .............."
(Cross examination of PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh dated 07.12.2024).
".................. I do not know as to how accused Wasim reached at PS H N Din or how he reached to the gate of PS H N Din. I cannot tell with certainty about the time when accused Wasim reached at PS H N Din but it must be in between 12 noon to 04 pm. I do not remember as to what were the clothes were worn by accused Wasim. I also do not remember the colour of the clothes worn by him ............... I cannot say as to how much time the accused Wasim remained with me when he came to me............ I did not conduct search of accused Wasim when he approached me and informed me........... I LOVLEEN remained present at the place where DO conducted the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:34 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 22/32 search of the accused. I personally did not participate in the search of accused Wasim. I do not remember as to which pistol got recovered from which pocket of the cloth worn by the accused. I do not remember if the pistol was recovered from the shirt or the pant...........Inspector Kumar Jisweshwar came within two -three minutes from the time when the DO recovered the pistols from the accused..........The pistols were not in any cover. The pistols were of black colour. I do not remember the impression of the marks/ initials engraved on the said pistols..........The pistols were not put in any polythene or in any wrapper/ paper wrapper by the DO............................................... ............."
(Cross examination of PW-17 HC Ajeet Kumar dated 11.05.2023).
"The seizure memo of the pistols was preapred after the arrest of accused Wasim. The disclosure statement of accused Wasim was recorded after his arrest ......................... ............................................. ."
(Cross examination of PW-17 HC Ajeet Kumar dated 12.05.2023).
" ........................ According to my statement accused Wasim was handed over to me by SI CL Meena and SI Kuldeep the duty officer. SI Kuldeep and SI CL Meena LOVLEEN did not gve me any DD entry regarding the arrival of Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:38 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 23/32 accused person Wasim in the police station......................... ................................... ...."
(Cross examination of PW-27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar dated 12.05.2023).
23. It is apparent that the accused persons admit:- i) that accused Waseem arrived in the PS prior to the registration of present FIR and; ii) that accused Waseem surrendered two pistols before the above named police officials. The above admissions are binding upon the accused Waseem in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 355. Accused Waseem having made said admissions during the cross-examination of said witnesses, could not be permitted to raise a dispute as to the said aspects during final arguments. As such, all the relevant arguments raised by the accused Waseem in order to dispute the above facts are discarded and rejected summarily. That being so, this Court could safely hold that the prosecution has proved that accused Waseem arrived in the PS prior to the registration of present FIR and also surrendered above said pistols and live ammunition before the police.
Seizure of Pistols and Live Ammunition
24. As per prosecution, the said two pistols and live ammunition surrendered by accused Waseem were formally seized by IO/ PW-27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar vide memo Ex. PW17/E. In this regard, prosecution examined PW17 HC Ajeet Kumar and IO/ PW-27 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar. Both the said witnesses have clearly and categorically LOVLEEN deposed about the seizure of said pistols and live ammunition during the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 24/32 2025.08.29 13:02:43 +0530 course of trial. Given the admissions made by accused Waseem during the course of cross-examination of PW17 HC Ajeet Kumar (reproduced in the aforegoing paragraphs), this Court could safely hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the seizure of said articles after registration of present FIR.
Seizure of Articles from the Spot of Incident
25. As per prosecution, police officials reached at the spot of incident i.e. Nizam Nagar, Hazrat Nizamuddin (near Police booth) after the receipt of relevant information. At the spot, inter alia, Police discovered that 04 empty cartridges, 06 live cartridges, 01 spent bullet Ex. EB-1 and some other articles were lying scattered. The above said articles were lifted from the spot and were seized by police vide separate memos. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-13 HC Rakam Singh, PW-14 HC Jarnail Singh and PW-15 SI C.L. Meena. All the said witnesses have deposed unison about the above discoveries made at the spot at the relevant time and about the seizure of above said articles by police. All the said witnesses were cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused persons but the same does not reflect anything favourable to the defence. The said witnesses seem to have withstood the test of cross- examination. As such, this Court finds their oral testimony to be reliable and trustworthy qua the above aspects. That being so, this Court could safely assume that the prosecution has successfully proved the above facts on record.
Ballistics examination of Pistols and Ammunition / Bullet LOVLEEN
26. Prosecution claims that during the course of examination, the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:48 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 25/32 +0530 seized pistols as well as ammunition / cartridges were forwarded to FSL, Rohini for Ballistic examination. As per report of Ballistics Division, FSL, the pistols surrendered by accused Waseem are firearms and that one spent bullet (Ex.EB-1), which was recovered from the spot of incident soon after the occurrence thereof, was indeed fired from one of the said pistols. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-21 Ms. Prerna Lakra, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistics), FSL, Rohini, who has proved her detailed report as Ex.PW21/A. She was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused persons. However, her cross-examination does not reflect anything materially favourable to the defence. PW-21 seems to have withstood the test of cross-examination. That being so, this court could safely hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the above aspects on record.
Cause of death of victims
27. Admittedly, both the accused persons have made statement u/s 294 CrPC admitting the genuineness of postmortem reports Ex.P4 and Ex. P5 pertaining to deceased Shaina and deceased Sahadatt respectively. As per said reports, both the said deceased persons lost their lives due to ante-mortem injuries sustained from the projectiles of fire arms. That being so, this Court could safely hold that prosecution has proved the cause of death of the deceased persons on record.
CCTV Footage
28. As per prosecution, the entire incident was recorded in a CCTV Camera installed at H.NO. Y 388, Nizam Nagar, Babli Gate, Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. The DVR containing the said CCTV Footage was seized by police from one Md. Abid vide memo Ex. PW17/H. In this LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 26/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:51 +0530 regard, prosecution examined said Md. Abid as PW23, who deposed in line with the above case put up by the prosecution. He was not subjected to any cross examination by the accused persons, accordingly, it could be safely held that prosecution has proved the seizure of said DVR on record.
29. Proceeding further, this Court notes that as per prosecution, the said DVR was forwarded to FSL Rohini for ascertaining the genuineness of the video files related to the present incident. FSL Rohini reported to the police that the said video file / footage does not bear any tampering. However, the facial image recognition could not be conducted due to insufficient facial image data. In this regard, prosecution examined PW30 Dr. C P Singh, Assistant Director, FSL, who deposed in line with the above case put forth by the prosecution and proved his report as Ex. PW30/P1. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons, accordingly, this Court could hold that prosecution has proved the above aspects on record.
30. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that prosecution has not been able to 'play' the said CCTV footage during the course of trial. In such facts and circumstances, this Court could not form any view about the identity of the persons visible therein. Even otherwise, given the scientific opinion of PW30 Dr. C P Singh, who has clearly reported that the facial image recognition could not be conducted due to insufficient facial image data in the said CCTV footage, at this stage, the prosecution could not be permitted to take any benefit of the factum of seizure of LOVLEEN said DVR during the course of investigation.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:54 +0530FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 27/32 Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act
31. As per prosecution, a formal sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was granted for the prosecution of accused Waseem under the provisions of Arms Act. In order to prove the said Sanction Ex. PW29/P1, prosecution examined PW29 Sh. Surender Chaudhary, IPS during the course of trial, who deposed about having granted the said Sanction at the relevant time. He was cross-examined in brief on behalf of the accused persons, which does not reflect any material beneficial to the case of the accused persons. That being so, this Court could hold that the prosecution has successfully prove the said sanction on record.
Adjudication as to charges
32. Having assessed the evidence led on record by the prosecution, this Court is now required to deliver a ruling as to whether the same justifies the charges framed against the accused persons. Admittedly, prosecution is currently relying upon certain circumstantial evidence to seek a finding of guilt against the accused persons. As such, it would be appropriate to firstly discuss the fundamentals of the law in this regard. In Shankar Versus The State of Maharashtra2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under:
"8. In the decision in Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 4 SCC 668, this Court took note of the following principles laid down regarding the law relating circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : -
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 28/32 Date: 2025.08.29 13:02:58 +0530 said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the following observations were made:
19...."Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154 . These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." LOVLEEN
9. After noting the above five golden principles, it was held in Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:03:02 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 29/32 Prakash's case (supra), that they would constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and conviction could be sustained on he basis of last seen, motive and recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of the information given by the accused if those five golden principles of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence are satisfied."
33. Keeping in view the above principles of Law, this Court now proceeds to adjudicate the effect of evidence available on record. Admittedly, prosecution has not been able to prove any 'motive' in this case. The only three relevant facts proved on record by the prosecution are:-
i). that accused Waseem surrendered in PS H N Din alongwith 02 pistols (fire arms) and some live ammunition soon after (i.e. within 04 hours) the police received an information about a shootout at Nizam Nagar Basti, Hazrat Nizamuddin and;
ii). that 01 spent bullet Ex. EB-1, which was recovered from the place of shootout, was actually fired from one of the pistols surrendered by accused Waseem in the PS.
iii). that deceased Shaina & deceased Sahadatt died of antemortem injuries sustained from projectiles of fire arm.
34. However, it must be noted here that prosecution has not placed any material on record to prove that the bullets /shrapnel recovered from the dead bodies of both the victims were infact discharged from the said two pistols surrendered by accused Waseem in the PS soon after the shoot LOVLEEN out. This fact creates a doubt in the mind of this Court about the story of Digitally signed FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 30/32 by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:03:05 +0530 the prosecution that the said two pistols were indeed employed / used against both the victims at the relevant time. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the said two pistols do not bear fingerprints of the accused Waseem. This fact takes this Court by a surprise since the story put up by the prosecution is to the effect that accused Waseem had shot the victims at the relevant time. Given the above infirmities in the case of the prosecution, the conduct of the accused Waseem, in surrendering said two pistols and some live ammunition in the PS, though relevant, is insufficient to hold him guilty of murder. Reliance is placed upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court at para (89) in SUBRAMANYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) 887 . As such, accused Waseem is liable to be acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 302 IPC and section 27 Arms Act.
35. Admittedly, prosecution has not led any positive evidence to prove existence of any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons to eliminate both the victims at the relevant time, accordingly, both the accused persons namely Waseem and Rihana are liable to be acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC and 302 IPC r/w 120-B IPC.
36. Be that as it may, prosecution has placed sufficient materials on record to prove that accused Waseem was possessed of said two pistols LOVLEEN and some live ammunition, which he surrendered in the PS at the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.08.29 13:03:11 +0530 FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 31/32 relevant time. Accordingly, he is liable to be convicted of the offence punishable u/s 25 (1B) Arms Act. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.29 13:03:16 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 29.08.2025 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South- East), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No: 156/2021 State vs. Waseem and Anr. 32/32