Delhi District Court
State vs Shahnwaz on 29 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. SHAHNWAZ & ORS.
CNR No. DLCT01-000376-2023
Sessions Case No. 22/2023
FIR No. 474/2022
Police Station Lahori Gate
Date of Committal 09.01.2023
Name of the Complainant ASI Bijender Singh
Name of the Accused/s 1. Shahnwaz S/o Sh. Saleem
2. Mohsin @ Mohsim S/o Md. Yasim
3. Tehsim @ Mannu S/o Md. Yasim
Offence/complained of 307/34 IPC
Plea Of The Accused Pleaded Not Guilty
Judgment delivered on 29.04.2026
Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The present FIR has been registered at PS Lahori Gate against the accused persons namely Shahnwaz, Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 06/07.09.2022, between 11:30 PM to 12:00 midnight, near the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, within the jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate, accused Shahnawaz, along with co-accused persons namely Tehseem @ Mannu, Kasif SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.1 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:12 +0530 @ Kasim, Mohsin and 3-4 unknown associates (not arrested till date), in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the injured namely Nooreen @ Lalla with fist, leg blows and danda, and co-accused Tehseem @ Mannu caused multiple stab injuries by knife on the body of the injured, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by the aforesaid act death had been caused, all of them would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
4. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
5. On 07.01.2023 and 27.03.2024, Ld. Predecessor framed charge against the accused Shahnwaz for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and against accused Tehsim @ Mannu and Mohsin @ Mohsim for the offence under Section 307/174A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses.
7. PW-1/Nooreen @ Lalla S/o Sh. Hussain deposed that he is SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.2 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:17 +0530 illiterate and an auto driver by profession, that he used to ply his rickshaw in the area of New Delhi Railway Station, Old Delhi Railway Station and in Pahar Ganj. He further deposed that on 05.09.2022, at about 11/11.30 pm when he was present at entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station near Tea shop where 4/5 persons were already present, that tea shop keeper gave him a cup of tea firstly due to which said 4/5 persons became annoyed and started quarreling with him, that said 4/5 persons started giving him legs and fist blows to him, that they pressed his head downward and also made attack upon him with wooden stick, that out of them, one person stabbed on his stomach. Thereafter, he fell on the ground and became unconscious, that he regained his consciousness in LNJP hospital, that he got treatment in LNJP hospital, that police official met him in the hospital and made inquiries from him regarding the incident, that police did not record his statement, that he cannot identify assailants as at the time of incident there was darkness due to late night and they pressed his neck downwards, that none of the accused/assailant is present in the Court today, that he remained admitted in the hospital for about 6-7 days, that he does not know anything else and cannot identify weapon of offence.
8. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied that he knew Mohsin prior to the incident. He further denied that on 05.09.2022 at about 11-11.30 pm accused Mohsin (yet to be arrested) was also present at the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station and he started kidding with him, when he objected accused Mohsin abused him and started quarreling with him. He further denied that public persons intervened and SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.3 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:25 +0530 pacified quarrel between him and accused Mohsin. He further denied that accused Mohsin threatened him by saying "Saale Main Tera Aisa Haal Karunga Ki Tu Jeene Ki Chahat Chod Dega". He further denied that that in the intervening night of 06/07.09.2022 at about 11.30 pm-12 midnight when he was present on the road in front of entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station accused Mohsin alongwith his brother Tehsim @ Mannu and his friend Shahnawaj and their 3-4 associates came there. He further denied that at that time Mohsin was carrying a wooden stick in his hand and his brother Tehsim @ Mannu was carrying a knife in his hand. He further denied that accused Mohsin caught hold him by collar of his shirt and threatened him by saying "Kal Tu Bach Gaya Tha Lekin Aaj Tujhe Jaan Se Maar Dunga".
9. He further denied that that accused Mohsin shouted by saying that kill him today, at once accused Shahnawaj gave fist blows on his face. He admitted that during incident he tried to save himself by escaping from there but he was caught hold by accused persons/assailants. He further denied that accused Mohsin gave danda blows to him and his associates gave leg and fist blows to him during incident. He further denied that during incident brother of accused Mohsin namely Tehsim @ Mannu with intention to kill him made attack upon him with knife at that time he turned around to save himself due to which he stabbed on back portion of his body. He further denied that accused Mohsin, Tehsim @ Mannu, Shahnawaj and their associates were shouting "Isey Aaj Jaan Se Maar Do".
10. He further denied that firstly he had taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and after that to LNJP Hospital. He admitted that SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.4 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:24:30
+0530
concerned doctor seized his wearing clothes and deposed he can identify his clothes which were seized by the doctor in the hospital. He admitted that his clothes were having blood stains due to stab injury on his back portion of body.
11. PW-1 failed to identify accused Shahnawaj despite his attention being drawn specifically towards him. He denied that he is not intentionally identifying accused Shahnawaj as he has been won over by the accused. He denied that he was beaten by Mohsin and stabbed injuries was caused by his brother Tehsim @ Mannu. He denied that he is deposing falsely as he has settled the matter with the accused. He deposed that he can identify his clothes which he worn at the time of incident and seized by concerned doctor during treatment in the hospital.
12. PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
13. PW-1 was recalled for examination after framing of charge in respect of accused persons namely Mannu @ Tehsim and Mosim and he stood firm in support of his contentions and reiterated his earlier examination-in-chief and failed to identify accused persons as well as weapon of offence.
14. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied that he knew accused Mohsin prior to the incident. He further denied that on 05.09.2022 at about 11- 11.30 pm accused Mohsin, who was present in Court, was also present at the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station and started kidding with him, and when he objected accused Mohsin abused him and started quarreling with him. He further denied that public persons intervened and pacified quarrel between him and SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.5 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:42 +0530 accused Mohsin. He further denied that accused Mohsin threatened him by saying "Saale Main Tera Aisa Haal Karunga Ki Tu Jeene Ki Chahat Chod Dega".
15. PW-1 further denied that in the intervening night of 06/07.09.2022, at about 11.30 pm-12 midnight, when he was present on the road in front of entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, accused Mohsin alongwith his brother i.e. accused Tehsim @ Mannu, who was present in Court, and his friend Shahnawaj and their 3-4 associates came there. He further denied that at that time Mohsin was carrying a wooden stick in his hand and his brother Tehsim @ Mannu was carrying a knife in his hand.
16. He further denied that accused Mohsin caught hold him by collar of his shirt and threatened him by saying "Kal Tu Bach Gaya Tha Lekin Aaj Tujhe Jaan Se Maar Dunga". He further denied that accused Mohsin shouted by saying that kill him today and at once accused Shahnawaj gave fist blows on his face.
17. He further admitted during incident he tried to save himself by escaping from there but he was caught hold by accused persons/assailants. He further denied the that accused Mohsin gave danda blows to him and his associates gave leg and fist blows to him during incident.
18. He further denied that during incident brother of accused Mohsin namely Tehsim @ Mannu with intention to kill him attacked him with knife and he turned around to save himself due to which he stabbed on back portion of his body. He further denied that accused Mohsin, Tehsim @ Mannu, Shahnawaj and their associates were shouting "Isey Aaj Jaan Se Maar Do".
SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.6 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:46 +0530
19. Thereafter, attention of witness was drawn towards all the three accused persons i.e. accused Shahnawaj, Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu for identification but witness failed to identify accused persons.
20. He further denied that he is not intentionally identifying accused persons as he has been won over by the accused persons.
He further denied that he was beaten by Mohsin and stab injuries was caused by his brother Tehsim @ Mannu. He further denied that he is deposing falsely as he has settled the matter with the accused persons.
21. Statement of this witness recorded during investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to the witness and witness denied having made any such statement to the police and was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.09.2022 where the name of accused persons including the role played by them have been specifically mentioned at portion X to X1 in statement Mark PW-1/A. However, witness still denied the same.
22. He further deposed that he can identify his clothes which he wore at the time of incident and seized by concerned doctor during treatment in the hospital.
23. PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
24. PW-2/Sh. Moin Khan deposed that he is a taxi driver by profession, that he used to drive taxi no. DL1T-8101 belonging to his employer Mohd. Arif Roz. He further deposed that during the intervening night of 6/7.09.2022, on or about 12:15 pm, his friend Arun came to the parking area and informed him that some persons had assaulted Nooreen @ Lalla with a knife, that he SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.7 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:24:51 +0530 alongwith Arun in his taxi went to the gate of Old Delhi Railway Station and found Nooreen @ Lalla in injured condition, that they immediately took Nooren in his taxi to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital from where he was referred to LNJP Hospital, that thereafter, he also brought Smt. Heena i.e. wife of injured to the said hospital.
25. He further deposed that except this, he does not know anything else in this case and he does not want to say anything else in this case.
26. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied that Arun and Shehzad informed him that injured Nooren @ Lalla was assaulted by Mohsin and his brother Tehseen and their friend Shahnawaz by causing knife injuries to him or that he stated the said facts to the IO.
27. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 09.09.2022 was read over to the witness and the witness denied having made any such statement before the police and was confronted with statement mark Ex. PW2/A portion A to A-1, where the aforesaid facts are found specifically recorded.
28. He further denied that being won over by accused, he is intentionally not deposing true facts before this Court or that he is intentionally not supporting statement Mark PW2/A. He further denied that he is deposing falsely.
29. PW-2 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
30. PW-3/Sh. Arun Kumar deposed that in the year 2022, he used to drive taxi. He further deposed that during the intervening night of 6/7.09.2022, on or about 12:15 am, while he was present SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.8 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:24:56
+0530
at the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, he found public persons being gathered there, that he went ahead and saw that his friend Nooren @ Lalla was lying unconscious in injured condition, that he also saw his another friend Shahzad taking care of injured Nooren, that he immediately rushed to the taxi stand, where he met Moin Khan and informed him that some persons had assaulted Nooreen @ Lalla with a knife, that he alongwith Moin Khan in the taxi of Moin Khan went to the gate of Old Delhi Railway Station and found Nooreen @ Lalla in injured condition, that they immediately took Nooren in the taxi of Moin to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital from where he was referred to LNJP Hospital, that thereafter, they also brought Smt. Heena i.e. wife of injured to the said hospital.
31. He further deposed that except this, he does not know anything else in this case and he does not want to say anything else in this case.
32. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied that his friend Shehzad informed him that injured Nooren @ Lalla was assaulted by Mohsin and his brother Tehseen and their friend Shahnawaz by causing knife injuries to him or that he stated the said facts to the IO.
33. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 09.09.2022 was read over to the witness and the witness denied having made any such statement before the police and was confronted with statement Mark Ex. PW3/A portion A to A-1, where the aforesaid facts are found specifically recorded.
34. He further denied that being won over by accused, he is intentionally not deposing true facts before this Court or that he SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.9 of 45 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:00 +0530 is intentionally not supporting statement Mark PW3/A. He further denied that he is deposing falsely.
35. PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
36. PW-4/Mohd. Wahid, Senior Scientific Officer, Crime Scene, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 28.09.2022, he alongwith Sh. Rakesh Mishra, SSA/ Photo, and Sh. Mahendra Singh SA/CS went to the place of occurrence i.e. near the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, where they met the IO.
37. He further deposed that he had inspected the scene of crime and prepared the crime scene report Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A, that he suggested the IO for lifting the blood stain from the spot and for sending the same to FSL for further examination.
38. PW-4 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
39. PW-5/Sh. Prakash Saxena, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., Plot No. 1, A Block, Reliance Mall, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, deposed that on the day of his deposition, he had brought the CDR of mobile number 8287573374 for the period from 06.09.2022 to 07.09.2022 which is Ex. PW5/A, and each page bears his signatures and official stamp.
40. He further deposed that he had also brought the CAF in respect of the aforesaid mobile number which is in the name of Arun Kumar and the same is Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature and official seal at point A.
41. He further deposed that he had also brought certificate under Section 63(4) of BSA, which is Ex. PW5/C bearing his SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.10 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:11 +0530 signature and official stamp at point A.
42. PW-5 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
43. PW-6/Dr. Shahvez Khan deposed that on 10.09.2022, he was on duty as JR with AAA Hospital, Civil Lines, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day, he medically examined Shahnawaj S/o Salim and upon examination, prepared medical examination form vide ME No. 5329/22 which is Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point A.
44. PW-6 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
45. PW-7/Dr. Rajdeep Singh, Director Professor Surgery, Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, deposed that on the day of his deposition, he had seen the discharge summary of patient Nooren. He further deposed that as per the discharge summary, the said patient was admitted in their hospital on 07.09.2022 and was discharged on 16.09.2022 with the alleged history of multiple penetrating trauma to back by stab with knife at 12:00 AM on 07.09.2022 as told by the patient himself.
46. He further deposed that during treatment, the patient was presented to surgery and had undergone bilateral intercostal chest tube insertion under local anesthesia on 07.09.2022 in view of accidental removal of bilateral chest tube, that daily abdominal girth and hemogram charting was done and spine and foley's care was given.
47. He further deposed that thereafter on 16.09.2022, the said patient was discharged vide discharge summary which is Ex. PW7/A bearing the signatures of Junior Resident and Senior SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.11 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:17 +0530 Resident at points A and B.
48. PW-7 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
49. PW-8/Dr. Mohammad Shoaib, Senior Resident, Radiology, LNJP Hospital, Delhi, deposed that on the day of his deposition, he had seen the CECT, Chest, Abdomen and Spine of patient Nooren. He further deposed that he examined the said CECT and prepared report which is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A.
50. He further deposed that upon examination, the said CECT gave impression of bilateral pneumothorax and surgical emphysema, intercostal drain in situ on left side, a cutaneous defect over right posterolateral chest wall continuing into a sub muscular hematoma with right sided hemothorax as described.
51. PW-8 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
52. PW-9/Mr. Shahzad deposed that he is a taxi driver by profession. He further deposed that sometimes he used to park his taxi at Old Delhi Railway Station. He further deposed that on 06.09.2022, on or about 09:00 PM, he drove his taxi to ODRS and was looking for passengers, that while he was present at the aforesaid station, he saw public persons gathered near the entry gate of ODRS and there was hue and cry, accordingly, he also went to the said place. He further deposed that he saw Nooren @ Lalla, whom he was knowing earlier, lying in injured condition. He further deposed that he also saw some boys running away, but the accused persons present in the Court today were not amongst the said boys.
SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.12 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:25:22
+0530
53. He further deposed that he immediately took Nooren firstly to a Nursing Home from where he was referred to LNJP Hospital and he took Nooren to the hospital in another taxi. He further deposed that in the hospital, his blood stained wearing shirt was taken into possession. He further deposed that except this, he does not want to say anything else in this case and he does not know anything else in this case.
54. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied that when he went to the entry gate of ODRS, he saw accused Mohsin, his brother i.e. accused Tehsim @ Mannu and accused Shahnawaz alongwith their 2-3 associates cornered his friend Nooren @ Lalla or were giving beatings to him or that he also saw Mohsin armed with danda or that he saw accused Tehsim @ Mannu armed with knife or that he also saw accused Mohsin assaulting Nooren with danda or that he also saw accused Tehsim @ Mannu assaulting Nooren with a knife or that the knife firstly struck on the back of Nooren and thereafter also accused Tehsim @ Mannu gave multiple knife blows over the body of Nooren.
55. He further denied that accused persons and their associates also used abusive language against Nooren and uttered the words "aaj isko jaan se mar denge" or that he tried to save Nooren from the clutches of accused persons but the accused persons threatened him as a result of which he took a step back. He further denied that his friend Nooren fell on the ground in his presence or that in the meantime accused persons managed to run away from the spot. He further denied that he specifically named accused persons before the police.
SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.13 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:25:27
+0530
56. Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 09.09.2022 was read over to the witness and the witness denied having made any such statement before the police and was confronted with statement Mark PW9/A from portion A to A1, where the aforesaid facts including the names of accused persons and roles played by them in the commission of offence have been specifically mentioned, however, the witness still denied the same.
57. Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused persons namely Shahnawaz, Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu, who were present in the Court but the witness failed to identify the accused persons as assailants. He denied that being won over by the accused persons, he is intentionally not identifying the accused persons or that he is intentionally not supporting statement Mark PW9/A.
58. PW-9 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
59. PW-10/ASI Bijender Singh deposed that on 07.09.2022, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate and was on night emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. He further deposed that on that day, upon receipt of DD No. 4A, he alongwith HC Bharat went to the place of occurrence i.e. near ODRS entry gate, where they came to know that the injured had been taken to hospital. He further deposed that efforts were made to trace the eye witness of the incident but in vain. He further deposed that while they were present at the spot, duty officer gave information through phone that the injured had been taken to AAA Hospital, that he went to the said hospital and collected MLC of injured Nooreen @ Lalla SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.14 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:31 +0530 and the said patient was opined unfit for statement and was referred to higher centre.
60. He further deposed that from the said hospital, he collected one sealed pullanda containing the clothes of injured Nooreen and sample seal and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to LNJP Hospital where patient was again opined unfit for statement and thus his statement could not be recorded. He further deposed that on the basis of GD No. 4A Ex. PW10/B which was marked to him and contents of MLC, he prepared rukka Ex. PW10/C and got the FIR registered through duty officer, that after registration of FIR, the investigation was marked to SI Parveen.
61. He further deposed that on 14.07.2023, he also formally arrested accused Mohsin @ Mohsim, who was declared PO, vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/D. He further deposed that accused Mohsin @ Mohsim is present in the Court today and correctly identified. He further deposed that he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mohsin @ Mohsim Ex. PW10/E, both the memos bearing his signatures at point A.
62. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that false FIR was registered or that accused Mohsin has falsely been arrested or that accused Mohsin has not made any such disclosure statement or that he is deposing falsely.
63. PW-11/HC Saurav Yadav deposed that on 13.07.2023, he was posted at PS Kotwali. He further deposed that on that day, during evening hours, he alongwith Ct. Rahul was present at SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.15 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:41 +0530 Angoori Bagh near Nagpal Dairy for search of proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that on or about 07:00 PM, one secret informer gave information to him that accused Mohd. Mohsin, who had been declared PO in case FIR No. 474/2022 PS Lahori Gate, could be met near Chhatta Rail. He further deposed that upon this information, he prepared a raiding party and they managed to apprehend accused Mohd. Mohsin, who was present in the Court, at the pointing out of secret informer. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Mohd. Mohsin and effected his arrest in kalandra vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point A.
64. He further deposed that he also prepared kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Ex. PW11/B bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he also lodged GD No. 53A Ex. PW11/C and GD No. 72A Ex. PW11/D in this regard. He further deposed that he also conducted personal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin vide memo Ex. PW11/E bearing his signature at point A.
65. He further deposed that information of arrest of accused Mohd. Mohsin was given to PS Kotwali as well as to PS Lahori Gate and during investigation, IO recorded his statement.
66. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that no such secret information was received by him or that accused Mohd. Mohsin himself came to PS or that accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested from PS as he himself came to PS or that his arrest memo was prepared at the instance of IO or that accused Mohd. Mohsin was not apprehended as deposed by him or that he is deposing falsely.
67. PW-12/HC Gajender deposed that on 14.09.2023, he was SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.16 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:46 +0530 posted at ISC Crime Branch. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith HC Narender was present at Ankur Vihar Toll Tax for search of proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that during evening hours, one secret informer gave information to them that accused Tehsim @ Mannu, who had been declared PO in case FIR No. 474/2022 PS Lahori Gate, could be met at Ankur Vihar Toll Tax. He further deposed that upon this information, he prepared a raiding party and they managed to apprehend accused Tehsim @ Mannu, who is present in the Court today (correctly identified), at the pointing out of secret informer. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Tehsim @ Mannu and effected his arrest in kalandra vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW12/B, both bearing his signature at point A.
68. He further deposed that he also prepared kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Ex. PW12/C bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he also lodged GD No. 102A Ex. PW12/D and GD No. 157A Ex. PW12/E in this regard. He further deposed that information of arrest of accused Tehsim @ Mannu was given to PS Lahori Gate and during investigation, IO recorded his statement.
69. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that no such secret information was received by him or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu himself came to PS or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu was arrested from PS as he himself came to PS or that his arrest memo was prepared at the instance of IO or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu was not apprehended as deposed by him or that he is deposing falsely.
SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.17 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:25:52 +0530
70. PW-13 HC Narender deposed that on 14.09.2023, he was posted at ISC Crime Branch. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith HC Gajender was present at Ankur Vihar Toll Tax for search of proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that during evening hours, one secret informer gave information to them that accused Tehsim @ Mannu, who had been declared PO in case FIR No. 474/2022 PS Lahori Gate, could meet them at Ankur Vihar Toll Tax.
71. He further deposed that upon this information, HC Gajender prepared a raiding party and they managed to apprehend accused Tehsim @ Mannu, who was present in the Court, at the pointing out of secret informer. He further deposed that HC Gajender interrogated accused Tehsim @ Mannu and effected his arrest in kalandra vide arrest memo already Ex. PW12/A and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex. PW12/B, both bearing his signatures at point B.
72. He further deposed that HC Gajender also prepared kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. already Ex. PW12/C. He further deposed that HC Gajender also lodged GD No. 102A Ex. PW12/D and GD No. 157A Ex. PW12/E in this regard. He further deposed that information of arrest of accused Tehsim @ Mannu was given to PS Lahori Gate and during investigation, IO recorded his statement.
73. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that no such secret information was received by them or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu himself came to PS or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu was arrested from PS as he himself came to PS or that his arrest memo was prepared at SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.18 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:25:57
+0530
the instance of IO or that accused Tehsim @ Mannu was not apprehended as deposed by him or that he is deposing falsely.
74. PW-14/Constable Rahul deposed that on 13.07.2023, he was posted at PS Kotwali. He further deposed that on that day, during evening hours, he alongwith HC Saurav was present at Angoori Bagh near Nagpal Dairy for search of proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that on or about 07:00 PM, one secret informer gave information to HC Saurav that accused Mohd. Mohsin, who had been declared PO in case FIR No. 474/2022 PS Lahori Gate, could meet them near Chhatta Rail.
75. He further deposed that upon this information, HC Saurav prepared a raiding party and they managed to apprehend accused Mohd. Mohsin, who was present in the Court (correctly identified), at the pointing out of secret informer. He further deposed that HC Saurav interrogated accused Mohd. Mohsin and effected his arrest in kalandra vide arrest memo already Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point B.
76. He further deposed that HC Saurav also prepared kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. already Ex. PW11/B. He further deposed that HC Saurav also lodged GD No. 53A already Ex. PW11/C and GD No. 72A Ex. PW11/D in this regard. He further deposed that information of arrest of accused Mohd. Mohsin was given to PS Kotwali as well as to PS Lahori Gate and during investigation, IO recorded his statement.
77. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that no such secret information was received by them or that accused Mohd. Mohsin himself came to PS or that accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested from PS as he SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.19 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:02 +0530 himself came to PS or that his arrest memo was prepared at the instance of IO or that accused Mohd. Mohsin was not apprehended as deposed by him or that he is deposing falsely.
78. PW-15/HC Ajay deposed that on 08.09.2022, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate. He further deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO SI Praveen Kumar and witness Raj Kumar and accompanied them to the place of occurrence i.e. ODRS Entry Gate. He further deposed that the said witness Raj Kumar pointed out the place of occurrence and SI Praveen prepared rough site plan of the said place of occurrence.
79. He further deposed that in his presence, Forensic Crime Team from FSL Rohini also visited the spot in between 08:30 PM to 09:00 PM and inspected the said place of occurrence and instructed SI Praveen for lifting the exhibits from the spot. He further deposed that SI Praveen lifted blood with the help of cotton gauze from the spot and kept the said gauze piece in an envelope and sealed the same with the seal of "PK" and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that during investigation, IO also recorded his statement.
80. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness denied that he had not joined any such investigation or that no such exhibits were seized in his presence or that he signed the memo while sitting at PS at the instance of IO or that he is deposing falsely.
81. PW-16/HC Dharmender Kumar deposed that on 09.09.2022, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate. He further SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.20 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:07 +0530 deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO SI Praveen Kumar. He further deposed that on that day, while they were present at SPM Marg near ODRS Entry Gate, they met eye witness Shahzad who gave information to them that accused Shahnawaz could meet them near Kodiya Pul Parcel Gate. He further deposed that accordingly, they went to the said place and on the identification as well as at the instance of witness Shahzad, they managed to apprehend accused Shahnawaz, who was present in the Court (correctly identified). He further deposed that IO interrogated accused Shahnawaz and effected his arrest vide arrest memo Ex. PW16/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW16/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW16/C.
82. He further deposed that accused Shahnawaz pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW16/D, all the memos bearing his signature at point A respectively. He further deposed that on the same day, witness Shahzad also produced one T-shirt of red colour having blood stains and stated that he was wearing the said T-shirt at the time of occurrence. IO kept the said T-shirt in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of "PK" and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/E bearing his signature at point A.
83. He further deposed that during investigation on 30.09.2022, on the instructions of IO, he collected exhibits from MHC(M) vide road certificate and deposited the same at FSL and after deposit, handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M). He further deposed that IO also recorded his statement.
84. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.21 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:12 +0530 persons, the witness denied that accused Shahnawaz was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him or that he had not made any such disclosure statement or that accused Shahnawaz had not made any such pointing out or that he is deposing falsely.
85. PW-16 was recalled for evidence vide order dated 24.03.2026. He deposed that on 16.01.2023, he was assigned with the process u/s 82 CrPC against Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu, both sons of Md. Yaseen, r/o Khasra No. 64, gali no. 14, 25 foota road, Khushhal Park, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
He left the PS in morning vide departure entry GD No. 14A Ex. PW16/F, that he reached local PS i.e. Tronica City, Ghaziabad and made entry there vide GD No. 39 Ex. PW16/G, that assistance of local police was taken and he reached the address mentioned in process u/s 82 CrPC. Mother and sister of accused persons were found available at home but they were not present, that both the ladies told him that accused had not been visiting house for long time, that he recorded their statement vide Ex. PW16/H and Ex. PW16/I bearing their signature at point X and attested by him at point Y.
86. He further deposed that he also inquired some neighbors. He also recorded statement of one neighbor namely Irfan Ali vide Ex. PW16/J bearing their signature at point X and attested by him at point Y, that one copy of process was also pasted on the door of house of accused persons, that announcement of process was also affected by him in louder voice by collecting neighbors/resident of area and he returned to Delhi, that he also pasted one copy of process on the notice board of Court of Ld. MM. Publication was also got affected in local newspapers vide SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.22 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:16 +0530 Ex. PW16/K and Ex. PW16/K1, that he returned to PS, that he prepared his detailed report Ex. PW16/L and Ex. PW16/M, that he also made arrival entry vide GD No. 39A Ex. PW16/N.
87. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, he deposed that no one had gone from his PS and he had gone alone to conduct the said proceedings. He further deposed that he did not know the name of the police personnels of Ghaziabad police who were there with him at the time the said proceedings were conducted. He further deposed that at about 10.00 am he had left from the PS Lahori Gate and he had reached the PS Ghaziabad at about 01.00 pm. He further deposed that he had gone on his personal bike. He further deposed that he had not raised the expense of the petrol from the PS. He further deposed that he had inquired the other neighbors as well but neither anyone gave their names nor anyone were willing to give any statement in context to the same. He further deposed that approximately around 01.30 pm he had inquired from the said neighbors. He further deposed that no other public person was present when the said statement of the ladies and the neighbor namely Irfan Ali was recorded. He further deposed that no official photograph was clicked by him in context to the process that was pasted at the door of the house of the accused person. He further deposed that he did not know the names of the persons who gathered at the time when the announcement of the process was conducted by him. He further deposed that he had not called the drum beat person (dhol wala) when the said proceedings of announcement of process was conducted by him. He further SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.23 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:20 +0530 deposed that he had not recorded the statement of any police officials of PS Ghaziabad who had accompanied him at the time when the announcement of process was conducted. He further deposed that approximately around 04.30 pm he had reached back to PS Lahori Gate. He further deposed that he had though requested the ladies to show him their aadhaar cards but their aadhaar cards were not available with them. He denied that he had never visited the aforesaid house of the accused persons situated at Ghaziabad. He denied that no process was ever pasted by him at the door of the accused persons. He denied that the said proceeding never took place in accordance to the law. He denied that the entries made by him are spurious and after thought. He denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
88. PW-17/Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director Biology, FSL Rohini, deposed that vide letter No. 1436 dated 30.09.2022, their office received four sealed parcels in connection with the present case.
89. He further deposed that the said parcels were marked to him and he perused the same and seals on the said parcels were found in consonance with the forwarding letter. He further deposed that he opened the said parcels and examined the material/exhibits contained therein. He further deposed that upon examination, he prepared FSL report dated 26.06.2025 which is Ex. PW17/A bearing his signature at point A.
90. He further deposed that DNA profile was generated from source of Ex.3 i.e. T-shirt of eye witness Shehzad and was found similar with the DNA profile generated from source of Ex.4 i.e. blood on gauze cloth piece of Nooreen. He further deposed that SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.24 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:50 +0530 DNA profile could not be generated from source of Ex.1a, Ex.1b and Ex.2. After examination, remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of "IKM-FSL-DELHI".
91. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness deposed that no exhibit in connection with the accused persons was sent to him for examination purposes.
92. PW-18/Dr. Ruby Kumar, CCMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, deposed that she had been deputed by the Medical Superintendent to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Prem Purushotam, the then Junior Casualty Medical Officer. She further deposed that the said doctor had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. She further deposed that she could identify the handwriting and signatures of the said doctor as she had seen him signing and writing during official work.
93. She further deposed that on the day of her deposition, she had brought the medical examination form dated 23.09.2022 in respect of patient Nooreen @ Lalla, which was in the handwriting of Dr. Prem Purushotam and the same is Ex.
PW18/A. She further deposed that vide the said form, Dr. Prem Purushotam had taken the blood sample of injured Nooreen and after preservation handed over the same to the IO and the said form bears signature of Dr. Prem Purushotam at point A.
94. PW-18 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
95. PW-19/Dr. Ritesh Ranjan, Specialist Surgery, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, deposed that he had been posted in AAA Hospital for a long time. He further deposed that Dr. Gaurav Kumar was SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.25 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:26:54 +0530 Casualty Medical Officer and Dr. Ravi Kumar was Senior Resident in the year 2022 and both had left the services of the hospital. Attention of the witness was drawn towards MLC No. 1886/22. He further deposed that as per record, one patient Nooreen @ Lulla was brought to the hospital on 07.09.2022 at about 12:35 AM with alleged history of physical assault and the patient was examined vide MLC No. 1886/22, now Ex. PW19/A. He further deposed that as per record, the patient was unfit for statement till 09:00 AM of 08.09.2022. He further deposed that as per record, following injuries were present on the person of the injured: Stab wound present on right middle back of size approx. 3.5 x 1.5 cm, depth not assessed, obliquely placed. Stab wound present on right middle back of size approx. 3 x 1 cm, depth cannot be assessed, obliquely placed just below injury No.
1. Stab wound present on left side scapular region of size approx. 4.5 x 1 cm, depth cannot be assessed, obliquely placed. Stab wound present on epigastric region of size approx. 1 x 3 cm. Stab wound present on umbilical region of size approx. 1 x 3 cm on right side. He further deposed that as per record, the patient was referred to Senior Resident Surgery for further examination and management, where the patient was examined by Dr. Dilshad. He further deposed that as per record, nature of injury was opined as grievous at point X on the MLC bearing signatures of Dr. Gaurav at point A, of Dr. Ravi Kumar at point B and of Dr. Dilshad at point C.
96. PW-19 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
97. PW-20/SI Praveen Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2022, he SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.26 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:27:00 +0530 was posted at PS Lahori Gate and investigation of the present matter was assigned to him after registration of the FIR. He further deposed that since the injured was unfit for statement, he contacted PCR caller namely Raj Kumar and called him at the spot i.e. Old Delhi Railway Station near entry gate. He further deposed that he also reached at the spot with HC Ajay and prepared site plan which is Ex. PW20/A at the instance of Raj Kumar who had also reached there. He further deposed that he called FSL Team at the spot which inspected the spot and lifted exhibits which were handed over to him and taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW15/A. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Raj Kumar Ex. PW20/B, of Shehzad Ex. PW20/C, of Arun Kumar Ex. PW20/D and of Moin Khan Ex. PW20/E. He further deposed that during investigation case property was deposited in malkhana.
98. He further deposed that on 10.09.2022, accused Shahnawaz (present in Court and correctly identified) was arrested on identification by Shehzad vide arrest memo already Ex. PW16/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW16/B, his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo already Ex. PW16/C and pointing out memo at his instance was prepared vide memo already Ex. PW16/D, all bearing his signatures at point X and attested by him at point Y. He further deposed that his medical examination was got conducted and thereafter he was produced before the Court of Ld. MM.
99. He further deposed that he moved an application Ex. PW20/F for seeking police custody of accused and the same was SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.27 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:06
+0530
allowed. During police remand, accused Shahnawaz led the police party to the house of his accomplices namely Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu but they were not available at home and could not be apprehended despite best efforts.
100. He further deposed that Shehzad handed over his blood stained T-shirt which was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW16/E and he recorded statement of Shehzad Ex. PW20/G. He further deposed that he went to LNJP Hospital and found injured fit for statement and accordingly recorded his statement Ex. PW20/H. He further deposed that accused Shahnawaz was produced before the Court of Ld. MM and was remanded to judicial custody.
101. He further deposed that during investigation blood sample of injured was collected vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/I with sample seal. He further deposed that he collected certified copy of PCR form Ex. PW20/J, CDR with CAF and certificate with respect to mobile number 8287573374. He further deposed that he obtained result of nature of injury on MLC and also obtained NBWs against Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu. He further deposed that all sealed exhibits were sent to FSL, treatment papers of injured were collected, statements of police personnel and public witnesses were recorded, FSL report was collected, and thereafter charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Court through SHO.
102. He further deposed that he can identify the T-shirt of Shehzad if shown to him. MHC(M) produced FSL sealed envelope bearing parcel No. 3, seal was broken and one T-shirt was taken out which was shown to the witness and correctly SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.28 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:10
+0530
identified by him, which was handed over by Shehzad and the same is Ex. MO-1.
103. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness deposed that he does not remember the exact address of accused Mohsin and Tehsim but it was in Loni area and he does not remember the date and time when he visited their house. He further deposed that he visited the said address 4-5 times and was accompanied by HC Ajay, HC Dharmender, HC Vipin and HC Anil and departure entries were made in rojnamcha. He further admitted that no CCTV footage of the incident was taken into possession.
104. He denied that he never visited the correct address of accused persons or that veracity of allegations was not verified or that accused persons have been falsely implicated or that public witnesses are planted or that he is deposing falsely.
105. PW-21/SI Harish deposed that in June 2025, on the direction of SHO, FSL result already Ex. PW17/A was filed before the Hon'ble Court by way of supplementary charge sheet.
106. PW-21 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity being given for the same.
107. PW-22/SI Ranvijay deposed that in July 2023, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate. He further deposed that main charge sheet had already been filed by SI Praveen and two accused persons namely Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu had already been declared proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that on 14.07.2023, information was received from PS Kotwali that accused Mohsin had been arrested under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C. in the present case vide DD No. 54A Ex. PW22/A. He further SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.29 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:27:14 +0530 deposed that accused Mohsin was arrested vide memo already Ex. PW10/D by ASI Bijender Singh and he moved an application Ex. PW22/B for police remand of accused Mohsin.
108. He further deposed that during police remand, accused Mohsin pointed out the spot vide memo Ex. PW22/C bearing his signature at point X and attested by him at point Y and thereafter he was produced before the Court of Ld. MM. He further deposed that on 15.09.2023, information was received from Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri regarding arrest of accused Tehsim @ Mannu vide DD No. 42A Ex. PW22/D. He further deposed that he went to Court No. 247 where accused Tehsim was produced by Crime Branch officials and he arrested him vide memo Ex. PW22/E and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW22/E1, both bearing his thumb impression at point X and attested by him at point Y. He further deposed that he moved an application Ex. PW22/F for seeking police remand of accused Tehsim and during police remand, accused Tehsim also pointed out the spot vide memo Ex. PW22/G bearing his thumb impression at point X and attested by him at point Y and thereafter he was produced before the Court of Ld. MM.
109. He further deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses who joined him during investigation and prepared charge sheet and filed the same before the Court through SHO. He further deposed that both accused persons were present in Court and were correctly identified by him.
110. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, the witness deposed that he does not remember the name of the duty officer who informed him about arrest of accused SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.30 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:18
+0530
Mohsin. He further deposed that ASI Bijender accompanied them when they went with Mohsin and HC Dharmender accompanied when they went with Tehsim at the spot. He further deposed that he reached the spot with accused Mohsin at about 05:00 PM on 19.07.2023 and with accused Tehsim at about 04:00 PM on 15.09.2023 and no public person was present at the spot on both occasions. He further deposed that the spot is Old Delhi Railway Station. He further deposed that he does not remember the date and time when statements of witnesses were recorded and that no one else was present when he recorded statements. He denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of previous IO or that accused Tehsim had surrendered before PS Lahori Gate or that accused Mohsin had surrendered or that investigation is tainted, biased or shoddy.
111. It is pertinent to note that PW Raj Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses as he was not traceable vide order dated 28.07.2025.
112. PW Dr. Trilok Chand was also dropped from the list of witnesses on the ground that PW-7 Dr. Rajdeep Singh had already been examined on the same line of facts vide order dated 09.09.2025.
113. Vide separate statement of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, on 08.04.2026, PE was then closed as all the material witnesses have been examined and the matter was fixed for recording of Statement of the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 351 BNSS
114. Statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS was SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.31 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:32
+0530
recorded on 28.04.2026 wherein the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He chose not to lead DE and therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES
115. Final arguments were addressed by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Arjun Anand, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons. This court has duly considered the rival contentions and has also perused the record carefully.
APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS
116. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent and conclusive evidence. Burden of proving its case exclusively lies upon the prosecution and in order to succeed, it has to discharge the said burden.
117. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC on the allegations that in the intervening night of 06/07.09.2022, between 11:30 PM to 12:00 midnight, near the entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, within the jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate, accused Shahnawaz, along with co-accused persons namely SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.32 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.04.29 17:27:38 +0530 Tehseem @ Mannu, Kasif @ Kasim, Mohsin and 3-4 unknown associates (not arrested till date), in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the injured namely Nooreen @ Lalla with fist, leg blows and danda, and co-accused Tehseem @ Mannu caused multiple stab injuries by knife on the body of the injured, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by the aforesaid act death had been caused, all of them would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. Accused Tehsim @ Mannu and Mohsin @ Mohsim were absconding and therefore, they are charged with the offence under Section 174A IPC.
118. Section 307 IPC stipulates that "Attempt to murder--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
119. Section 174A IPC stipulates that:
174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.33 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:42
+0530
under Section 82 of Act 2 of 1974 -Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under subâ€'section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under subâ€'section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
120. It is evident from the record that the allegations against the accused are punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. To establish criminal liability for the said offence, it is imperative for the Prosecution to prove the identity of the accused persons as the offenders who hit the injured with an intention to kill him on the alleged date, time, and place. The best witnesses to establish the said identity is PW-1/Noreen/injured himself, PW-2/Moin Khan, PW-3/Arun Kumar and PW-9/Shahzad/eye-witness.
121. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1/Noreen who is the the injured in the present case and was projected as the star witness of the prosecution. PW-1 deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. 05.09.2022 at about 11:00/11:30 p.m, when he was present at entry gate of Old Delhi Railway Station, 4-5 persons quarrelled with him and gave him leg and first blows. He further deposed that they attacked upon him with wooden stick and out of those persons, one person stabbed in his stomach. However, during examination-in-chief, this witness categorically deposed that he cannot identify the assailants as at the time of the SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.34 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:45
+0530
incident, there was darkness due to late night. He further categorically deposed that none of the accused/assailants are present in the Court. He further deposed that he cannot identify the weapon of offence. By way of aforesaid testimony, PW-1/injured miserably failed to identify the accused persons as culprit as well as failed to identify the weapon of offence during his examination-in-chief.
122. In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the State, PW-1 categorically denied all the allegations against the accused persons. He also denied contents of his statement Mark PW1/A recorded by police officials despite being confronted with the same. Despite being cross-examined at length by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, PW-1 remained consistent in his stand and did not attribute any role to the accused persons in the alleged offence. He miserably failed to identify accused persons during his cross-examination also despite his attention being drawn specifically towards them. Thus, from the testimony of PW-1 itself, it is evident that he has failed to identify the accused as the assailant during his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination and has completely exonerated them from the role attributed by the prosecution. By way of aforesaid testimony, PW-1 miserably fails to establish the identity of the accused persons as the offenders and nothing incriminating came on record qua accused persons in his entire testimony so as to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
123. Similarly, the prosecution examined PW-2/Moin Khan, SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.35 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:27:50 +0530 who did not depose anything incriminating against accused persons in his entire examination-in-chief so as to connect them in the alleged offence.
124. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-2 categorically denied that PW-3/Arun and PW-9/Shahzad informed him that PW-1/Noreen @ Lala was assaulted by accused persons by causing knife injury to him and he stated said facts to the IO. He further denied contents of his statement Ex.PW2/A recorded by police officials despite being confronted with the same. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 is also of no assistance to the prosecution in proving the identity or role of the accused persons in the alleged offence.
125. The prosecution further examined PW-3/Arun Kumar who also did not depose anything incriminating against accused persons in his entire examination-in-chief so as to connect them in the alleged offence.
126. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-3 categorically denied that his friend Shahzad/PW-9 informed him that PW-1 was assaulted by accused persons by causing knife injuries to him. He also denied contents of his statement Mark PW3/A recorded by police officials despite being confronted with the same. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 is also of no consequence so as to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence and establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
127. PW-9/Shahzad deposed in his examination-in-chief he saw PW-1 lying in an injured condition on 06.09.2022 at about 09:00 SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.36 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:27:54
+0530
p.m and he also saw some boys running away but accused persons are not the same boys. Accordingly, he also failed to identify the accused persons as assailants so as to connect them with the alleged offence during examination-in-chief.
128. In cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-9 categorically denied all the allegations against the accused persons as well as contents of his statement Mark PW9/A recorded by police officials despite being confronted with the same. He further miserably failed to identify all the accused persons during his cross-examination also despite his attention being drawn specifically towards them. Accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record in the testimony of PW-9 also so as to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
129. Perusal of the record reveals that PW Raj Kumar/eye- witness was not examined in the present case as he was dropped from the list of witnesses being not traceable vide order dated 28.07.2025.
130. Perusal of the record reveals that so far as report of FSL is concerned, PW-17 categorically deposed that DNA profile could not be generated from the source of Ex.1a, Ex.1b and Ex.2. Furthermore, FSL examination, fingerprint lifting etc. also do not have any impact on the firm testimonies of aforementioned prosecution witnesses as opinions cannot take the place of proof and the said findings are merely opinions which are corroborative in nature.
SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.37 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:27:58 +0530
131. Other witnesses are formal in nature who have not witnessed the incident in question and therefore, cannot prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
132. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused is one of the most crucial aspect. Therefore, even if it is established that the incident took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and on the alleged date, time & place, the accused cannot be indicted for the said offence unless his identity is conclusively established. In the present case, the prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9 as material witnesses, however, all these witnesses have failed to identify the accused persons as the assailants and have consistently deposed that the assault was committed by some unknown persons and not the accused persons. Therefore, their testimonies are of no consequence to establish the identity of accused persons as the persons who inflicted injuries upon the injured.
133. Thus, identity of the accused persons to connect them with the present offence of attempt to murder has remained unsubstantiated. Thus, there is not even iota of evidence to establish that the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC
134. With respect to the allegations against accused Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC, it is seen from the testimony of PW-16/HC Dharmender Kumar that he failed to disclose the name of police officials of Ghaziabad who accompanied him at the time of execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. He further failed SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.38 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:28:03 +0530 to record names and address of neighbours/public persons who refused to give statement qua execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. So admittedly, there is no public person joined in the aforesaid proceedings which raises doubt about the genuinity of execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. PW-16 deposed in his cross-examination that no official photographs were clicked by him regarding the fact that process was pasted at the door of house of the accused persons and he also failed to disclose the name of the persons who gathered at the time of announcement of process by him. He further deposed that he has not called drum beat persons at the time of announcement of process by him and he has also not recorded statement of police officials of PS Ghaziabad who accompanied him at the time of announcement of process. Aforesaid lapses on the part of PW-16 while executing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C raises doubt about the genuinity of execution of process in accordance with law. So, the factum of execution of the said process by visiting the said address comes under grave doubt.
135. The testimony of PW-16 is reproduced in verbatim as under:-
On 16.01.2023, I was assigned with the process u.s. 82 CrPC against Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu, both sons of Md. Yaseen, r/o Khasra No. 64, gali no. 14, 25 foota road, Khushhal Park, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP. I left the PS in morning vide departure entry GD No. 14A Ex.PW16/F. I reached local PS i.e. Tronica City, Ghaziabad and made entry there vide GD No. 39 Ex.PW16/G. Assistance of local police was taken and reached the address mentioned in process u/s 82 CrPC. Mother and sister of accused persons were found available at home but they were not present. Both the ladies told me that accused had not SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.39 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:28:08 +0530 been visiting house for long time. I recorded their statement vide Ex.PW16/H and Ex.PW16/I bearing their signature at point X and attested by me at point Y. I also inquired some neighbors. I also recorded statement of one neighbor namely Irfan Ali vide Ex.PW16/J bearing their signature at point X and attested by me at point Y. One copy of process was also pasted on the door of house of accused persons. Announcement of process was also affected by me in louder voice by collecting neighbors/ resident of area. I returned to Delhi. I also pasted one copy of process on the notice board of Court of Ld. MM. Publication was also got affected in local newspapers vide Ex.PW16/K and Ex.PW16/K1. I returned to PS. I prepared my detailed report Ex.PW16/L and Ex.PW16/M. I also made arrival entry vide GD No. 39A Ex.PW16/N. XXXXXXX by Sh. Arjun Anand, Ld. Counsel for accused.
No one had gone from my PS and I had went alone to conduct the said proceedings. I do not know the name of the police personnels of Ghaziabad police who were there with me at the time the said proceedings were conducted. At about 10.00 am I had left from the PS Lahori Gate and I had reached the PS Ghaziabad at about 01.00 pm. I had gone on my personal bike. I had not raised the expense of the petrol from the PS. I had inquired the other neighbors as well but neither anyone gave their names nor anyone were willing to give any statement in context to the same. Approximately around 01.30 pm I had inquired from the said neighbors. No other public person was present when the said statement of the ladies and the neighbor namely Irfan Ali was recorded. No official photograph was clicked by me in context to the process that was pasted at the door of the house of the accused person. I do not know the names of the persons who gathered at the time when the announcement of the process was conducted by me. I had not called the drum beat person (dhol wala) when the said proceedings of announcement of process was conducted by me. I had not recorded the statement of any police officials of PS Ghaziabad who had accompanied me at the time when the announcement of process was conducted. Approximately around 04.30 pm I had reached back to PS Lahori Gate. I had though requested the ladies to show me their aadhaar cards but their aadhaar cards SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.40 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:28:14
+0530
were not available with them. It is wrong to suggest that I had never visited the aforesaid hosue of the accused persons situated at Ghaziabad. It is wrong to suggest that no process was ever pasted by me at the door of the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that the said proceeding never took place in accordance to the law. It is wrong to suggest that the entries made by me are spurious and after thought. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
136. Furthermore, the perusal of aforesaid testimony shows that neither the statement of any of the witnesses before whom said process was executed (by public reading, beating of drums etc.) nor any other document or material suggesting that the process server arranged drums or other articles for the proper execution, have been brought on record/proved. Even the address of accused was not ascertained properly by PW-16 at the time of execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. These facts make the due execution of the processes u/s 82 Cr.P.C. highly suspicious. The testimony of this witness further creates grave doubt upon the execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. Considering these observations and present facts, it cannot be said that there is ample clinching material to fasten the liability upon the accused Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu for the offence punishable under Section174A IPC.
137. Regarding the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC, it is pertinent to mention that no complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C., has been brought on record, which is sine qua non for taking cognizance for the said offence. In the absence of requisite complaint, the cognizance qua offence punishable u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is barred in law and thus question of fastening criminal liability for the said SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.41 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:28:19
+0530
offence does not arise. In support of aforesaid observations, this Court finds force in the following paragraphs of judgment dated 19.09.2024 in case titled as "Amandeep Gill & Anr. Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi" passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.:-
"19. Before assessing the various opinions, the pivot on which our analysis would rest is the decision of the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan (supra), which is binding on this Court. For offences under Section 188 IPC, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a complaint by a public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with, which must be in writing, since the provisions of Section 195 C.r.P.C were mandatory. It was stated that Court cannot assume cognizance of the case without such complaint and the trial/conviction was, therefore, void ab initio. Accordingly, it underscored that the law does not permit taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, in view of the bar under Section 195 C.r.P.C, in absence of a complaint, as prescribed under the provision. Therefore, logically and fundamentally, Section 188 IPC being cognizable, the same reasoning would also apply to an offence under Section 174-A IPC, which is also cognizable.
20. Even though, the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan (supra) does not deal with Section 174-A directly, it would be difficult to draw an artificial distinction between Section 174-A IPC and Section 188 IPC, despite both being covered in the category of Sections 172-188, in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Maneesh Goomer (supra) does not take into account the decision in C. Muniappan (supra), which was probably not brought to the attention of the Court and, therefore, in Maneesh Goomer (supra) an independent analysis and interpretation was done, reaching a conclusion that since Section 174-A IPC was the only cognizable offence in the category covered under Section 195 C.r.P.C., it was a conscious inclusion by the legislature and, therefore, would stand on its own footing. It would be difficult to support such an interpretation in view of C. Muniappan (supra)."
138. Accordingly, accused Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.42 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:28:23 +0530 174-A IPC also.
139. In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P"
reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
140. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454(SC).
141. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S 307/34 IPC against all accused persons SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.43 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:28:31
+0530
and for the offence under Section 174A against accused Mohsim @ Mohsin and Tehsim @ Mannu.
142. The prosecution failed to prove its case to conclude the guilt of the accused persons and the fact established are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons. It cannot be said that there is no explanation or any other hypothesis except that the accused persons are guilty and this leaves reasonable ground for the innocence of the accused persons and it does not show that in all human probability the act was done by the accused persons. Merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only the accused persons who have committed the crime. The present court finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to do so.
CONCLUSION:
143. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, appreciation of evidence, failure of key witnesses to identify the accused persons as culprits of committing alleged offence, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused persons and accordingly, accused Shahnawaz, Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and accused Mohsin @ Mohsim and Tehsim @ Mannu are also acquitted of the offence under Section 174A IPC.
144. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.44 of 45 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.29
17:28:36
+0530
photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of Section 437A CrPC. Same is accepted for a period of six months from today.
145. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.29 17:28:44 +0530 Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) on 29th day of April, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CERTIFICATE:
The judgment contains 45 pages and each page has Digitally signed been signed by me. SHILPI by JAIN SHILPI JAIN Date:
2026.04.29 17:28:48 +0530 (Shilpi Jain) Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 29.04.2026 SC No.122/2023 FIR No.474/2022 State Vs. Shahnwaz & Ors Page No.45 of 45