Delhi District Court
State vs Shehnawaj on 2 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR NO. : 485/2013
U/S : 325/34 IPC
P.S : Punjabi Bagh
STATE : Shehnawaj & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. KOMAL DATE OF INSTITUTE:10.05.2014 FINAL ARGUMENTS HEARD ON:26.07.2025 DATE OF RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT:02.12.2025
1) CNR NO. : DLWT020045432014
2) S. No. of the case : 68710/2016
3) Name of the accused persons : (1) Shehnawaz (2) Mohd. Sazid (3) Mohd. Javed (4) Mohd. Firoz (5) Mohd. Gazi Alam
4) Date of Commission of offence : 01.10.2013
5) Offence complained off : 325/509/34 IPC
6) plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty except Mohd. Gazi Alam.
7) Final Order : Convicted u/s 325/34 IPC & acquitted u/s 509 IPC. 8) Date of such order : 02.12.2025 Argued by: (a) Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. APP for State.
(b) Sh. P.K. Poddar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Digitally signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:46:40 +0530 FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 1 of 14 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.2013 at about 06:15 A.M. at near Jhuggi No. F-384, Cement Siding, Shakur Basti within the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh accused persons namely Shehnawaz, Mohd.
Sazid, Mohd. Javed, Mohd. Firoz and Mohd. Gazi Alam in furtherance of their common intention had beaten the complainant Shalda Khatoon and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant and secondly on the aforesaid date, time and place accused persons along with their wives in furtherance of their common intention insulted the modesty of complainant Shalda Khatoon by uttering such words intending that such word shall be heard or intrude upon the privacy or to insult the modesty of complainant and committed offence punishable U/s 325/509/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, final challan for offence U/s. 325/509/34 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was done.
3. Notice for committing the offence punishable under Section 325/509/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Shehnawaz, Mohd. Sazid, Mohd. Javed and Mohd. Firoz on 16.07.2015, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, notice for the same charges was framed against accused person namely Mohd. Gazi Alam was framed on 02.06.2025, to which he pleaded guilty and claimed not trial, and he was convicted accordingly.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 07 witnesses.
5. PW-1 Smt. Shalda Khatoon, W/o Sh. Mohd. Mehfooz, deposed that she belonged to the village Udakishan Ganj, PS Kishan Ganj, District Madhepura, Bihar and she came to Delhi for marriage of daughter namely Ajnabi Khatoon. She further deposed that on the relevant day, she was taking the water from the tap and some ladies were already standing over there and Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 2 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:46:47 +0530 they started abusing on the issue of taking water from the tap. She further deposed that suddenly, persons namely Shehnawaj, Javed, Firoz, Sazid, Ghazi & Mustqeen came at the spot and started beating her by fist & kick blows due to which she sustained injuries on her right hand and she lost her consciousness and some persons made the call on 100 number and police officials came at the spot and got admitted her into the hospital. She further deposed that she made the complaint to the police officials which is Ex. PW-1/A. Upon cross-examining by the Ld. APP for the State, she admitted that accused persons abused her by saying 'Randdi Randdi'.
In the cross examination witness deposed that she had stated the fact to the police officials that Mustqeen also had beaten and abused her but police officials not recorded the same. She further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the accused persons were not present at the spot at the time of quarrel and that she sustained injury due to her own fault. She further deposed that Police official initially reached at the spot and then, PCR took her at the hospital. She further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she filed the present complaint in collusion with the police official and that she deposed falsely.
6. PW-2 Mohd. Akim S/o Mohd. Mahafooz, deposed that he is Raj Mistri by profession and on 01.10.2013, at about 6.15 AM, his mother namely Salda Khatoon went to take water from common tap and two sons of Mustqin were taking bath over there. He further deposed that his mother tried to take the water from the tap but they removed the bucket from under the tap and then they started quarreling with his mother. He further deposed that he tried to save his mother but accused persons had beaten him with the dandas when his mother tried to save him, accused persons hit against the hand of his mother with the help of dandas. He further deposed that hand of his mother got fractured and one neighborer made the call at 100 number. He further deposed that Police official came at the spot and got his mother admitted at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and Ms. Nasrin also came at the spot. He further deposed that Gazi, and the son of Gazi and Mustkin were involved in the above said Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 3 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:46:51 +0530 incident.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State witness deposed that it is correct that when his mother reached at the spot, accused Sahnawaz and Jawed were taking bath over there and they quarreled with his mother. He further deposed that it is also correct that Sajid and Mohd. Gazi also came at the spot and quarreled with his mother. He further deposed that he did not see accused while pushing my mother. He further deposed that Mohd. Firoz and Mohd. Gazi are not the same person.
In the cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, witness deposed that it is correct that he is not permanent resident of K-125. He further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that quarrel took place only between ladies and there was no male person present at the spot and that due to the quarrel with the ladies his mother fell down on the floor and got injured. He further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no incident took place with the accused persons and that his statement was recorded while sitting at PS and that all the written work was done while sitting at PS.
7. PW-3 Smt. Nasreen Khatoon W/o Sh. Mohd. Azad, deposed that on 01.10.2013, at about 6:i5 am, she heard a quarreling noise and she saw that accused persons were quarreling regarding water and giving beatings to her aunt Smt. Shalda Khatoon who went to fetch water at water tap installed at the Jhuggis. She further deposed that her aunt tried to resist but fell down due to the beatings and sustained injuries upon her right hand.
Opportunity of cross examination of the said witness was given but the witness was not cross examined by accused persons.
8. PW-4 Dr. Amit Mehta, Memorial Hospital, Sonipat, Haryana deposed that on 01.10.2013, he was posted as Senior Resident, Orthopedics at Acharya Shree Bhikshu Govt. Hospital and on that day, the patient namely Shalda admitted with history of assault. He further deposed that he examined her and noted his opinion upon the MLC regarding the injuries being of Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 4 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:46:55 +0530 grievous in nature and the MLC is Ex.PW4/A. Opportunity of cross examination of the said witness was given but the witness was not cross examined by accused persons.
9. PW-5 Dr. Biswajit Das, SMO, Acharya Shree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 01.10.2013, he was working as Casualty Medical Officer at Acharya Shree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi and on that day at about 9:24 am, one patient was brought by SI Ramphool and Mohd. Saif Khan (brother in law of patient) with alleged history of assault at about 8:00 am near her home at Shakur Basti. He further deposed that the patient had come with history of loss of consciousness and complained of pain in right upper limb and chest and head. He further deposed that he had examined the patient and on examination, there was tenderness and swelling over right mid forearm and the patient was given primary treatment and advised X-rays and then she was referred to Ortho and surgery department. He further deposed that he had prepared the MLC which is already Ex.PW4/A. Opportunity of cross examination of the said witness was given but the witness was not cross examined by accused persons.
10. PW-6 Retd. SI Surender Ahlawat, deposed that on 01.10.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Punjabi Bagh and on that day, he received a DD No. 7A regarding quarrel at Cement Siding, Shakur Basti, Delhi and thereafter, he alongwith one Ct. visited at the spot Jhuggi No. F-384 and met complainant Salda Khatoon. He further deposed that he interrogated her and she told about the whole incident that the said incident took place due to taking water from public tap and thereafter, he recorded her statement about the incident and asked her that after receiving the MLC from the concerned hospital than he would lodged complaint. He further deposed that during the investigation, he got MLC from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital of the complainant and accordingly he endorsed the complaint Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that he handed over the said complaint to Ct. Balwant for the registration of the FIR and after Digitally FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 5 of 14 signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:12 +0530 registration of the FIR Ct. Balwant handed over him copy of the FIR and original Rukka. He further deposed that during the investigation, he tried to search all the accused persons as told by the complainant. He further deposed that he arrested all the accused persons indulged in the present case and conducted their personal search and thereafter, he prepared arrest memo and personal search memo all the four accused persons which are Ex. PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D and PW6/E respectively and personal search memos are Ex. PW6/F, PW6/G, PW6/H and PW6/I respectively. He further deposed that thereafter, he released all the accused persons on police bail and and he recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex. PW6/J, PW6/K, PW6/L and PW6/M respectively and he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW6/N. He further deposed that during the investigation he recorded the statements of the witnesses including Nasrin daughter of sister of complainant and Aalim, son of complainant, u/s 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that after completion of the investigation he filed the the charge sheet before the court In the cross examination, witness deposed that he does not remember the exact time when he received the call regarding quarrel at Shakur Basti, Railway Station, Cement Godown, however, the date was 01.10.2013 in the morning time. He further deposed that it was the quarrel between the neighbours on the pretext for filling the water. He further deposed that he doe not know who took the complainant to the hospital for first aid.
11. PW-7 HC Balwant Singh deposed that on 31.10.2013, he was posted as Constable PS Punjabi Bagh and on that day, he was on beat patrolling duty at Cement Siding, Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that during beat patrolling duty, he met SI Surender Ahlawat and handed over him a rukka about a case for the registration of FIR and thereafter, he visited PS Punjabi Bagh and after registration of the FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Surender Ahlawat. He further deposed that thereafter, SI Surender Ahlawat arrested two accused persons namely Javed and Shahanwaj Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 6 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:17 +0530 in his presence vide memos Ex. PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E and IO conducted personal search memo of both accused persons which are already Ex. PW6/H and Ex.PW6/I. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan in his presence which is Ex. PW6/N and IO recorded disclosure statements of both accused which Ex. PW6/L and Ex.PW6/M. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of the witnesses and during investigation, IO recorded his statement in this regard.
In his cross examination, witness deposed that it is correct that the incident did not take place in his presence and that SI Surender Ahlawat handed over him the rukka of the case at about 3:30 pm. He further deposed that it is correct that he came back to the spot and handed over the said FIR to SI Surender Ahlawat at about 5:00 pm. He further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he had deposed falsely.
12. The accused admitted the factum of registration of the present FIR which is Ex.AD1, Report of department of Radio Diagnosis of injured Shalda bearing No. E-88949/13 dated 01.10.2013 including the X-ray report and X- ray Plates which are Ex.X1 (colly) U/s. 294 Cr.P.C respectively.
13. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. All the incriminating evidence brought forth during trial were put to the accused persons, and the same were denied by the accused persons. They took the common plea of defence that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They further stated to not lead defence evidence.
14. The application under Section 319 Cr.PC for summoning Mohd. Gazi Alam as co-accused, moved by the Ld. APP, was allowed vide order dated 24.06.2022, after taking formal cognizance against Mohd. Gazi Alam, clarifying that though he was not originally charge-sheeted, due to an Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 7 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:22 +0530 inadvertent error, summons were issued to him instead of Mohd. Gazi Alam, and the entire proceedings including framing of charge, recording of prosecution evidence and statement under Section 313 Cr.PC had already been conducted with Mohd. Firoz's participation. Since the proceedings against Mohd. Firoz had already reached their conclusion and he had diligently participate, there was no necessity to conduct the proceedings de novo. Accordingly, Mohd. Gazi Alam was summoned and charge for the offences under Section 325/509/34 IPC was framed, to which he pleaded guilty and not claimed any trial. Accordingly, he was convicted vide order dated 02.06.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
15. Final arguments were addressed by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as by Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of both accused persons.
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that the injured complainant has fully supported the prosecution version and has specifically named all the accused persons as the assailants.
The medical evidence, particularly the MLC, supports the claim of grievous injury. Ld. Addl. PP prayed for conviction of the accused persons under Section 325/509/34 IPC.
Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the present case has been falsely instituted to harass the accused persons and thus the accused persons shall be acquitted. He has further relied upon the following judgments suggesting that the investigation done was tainted and unsafe one to rely upon, and the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 being inconsistent, should not be believed:-
Digitally signed by FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 8 of 14 komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:27 +0530
(i). State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramulu & Others.
(ii). Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
17. Both sides were heard at length. The record has been carefully perused and the evidence has been appreciated in light of the rival submissions made.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
18. In the present case, the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Let us now evaluate the reliability, credibility and evidentiary value of the key prosecution witnesses in the context of the charges framed under Sections 325/509/34 IPC against the accused persons.
19. PW-1 is the principal witness of the prosecution and the injured complainant. She categorically stated that on 01.10.2013, while she was taking water from the tap near Jhuggi No. F-384, certain women present there started abusing her. Thereafter, the accused persons namely Shehnawaz, Javed, Firoz, Sazid, Gazi and Mustkeen came and physically assaulted her with fists and kicks, causing grievous injury to her right hand. She deposed that she lost consciousness and was later admitted to the hospital by the police. She specifically identified the accused and supported the version in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. In her cross-examination, although she admitted that she had also named Mustkeen but his name was not recorded by the police, she remained firm in asserting the presence and involvement of the accused. Her testimony is consistent and cogent, showing no material contradictions, thereby lending substantial weight to the prosecution's case. Nothing in support of the defence version or to discredit her testimony, emerged during cross examination of the witness.
20. PW-2 Mohd. Akim corroborated the version of PW-1. He stated that while his mother was drawing water, accused persons removed her bucket and Digitally FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 9 of 14 signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:31 +0530 started a quarrel. He tried to intervene but was beaten with dandas. He categorically deposed that when his mother tried to shield him, the accused hit her on her hand with dandas, causing fracture. His cross-examination reinforced the prosecution case. He named Shehnawaz, Javed, Sajid and Gazi as participants and clarified that Mohd. Firoz and Mohd. Gazi are not the same person as such a distinction relevant in view of the Section 319 application later. Although he did not see the exact act of pushing his mother, his account clearly supports the use of force and collective aggression by the accused. During cross-examination, nothing favourable to the defence was emerged.
21. PW-3 Smt. Nasreen Khatoon, niece of the complainant, is also an eyewitness. She testified that she saw the accused persons beating her aunt and that her aunt fell down and sustained injuries to her right hand. Her testimony is direct and unshaken as she was not cross-examined, despite the opportunity being granted. Hence, her deposition stands unrebutted and supports the core prosecution version of physical assault on the complainant by the accused.
22. PW-4 Dr. Amit Mehta confirmed the nature of injuries suffered by PW-1 as grievous. He examined her at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and opined on the MLC (Ex. PW4/A), confirming fracture. He remained unchallenged in cross-
examination.
23. PW-5 Dr. Biswajit Das, the CMO who initially treated the complainant, deposed about the history of assault, loss of consciousness, and pain in right forearm and chest. He observed swelling and tenderness and referred the patient to Orthopedics. His MLC corroborates the grievous injury and mechanism of trauma as narrated by PW-1. This chain of medical evidence remains intact and substantiates the charge under Section 325 IPC.
24. PW-6 is the IO who received the DD entry, visited the spot, recorded the complaint of PW-1, collected the MLC, registered FIR through Ct. Balwant, Digitally FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 10 of 14 signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:35 +0530 and subsequently arrested the accused persons. He also recorded disclosure statements, prepared site plan (Ex.PW6/N), and examined other witnesses.
25. Though he could not recall the exact time of receipt of DD entry and was unsure who took the victim to hospital, these are minor omissions and do not weaken the investigation's foundation, particularly as the FIR was registered promptly and the investigation was logically concluded.
26. PW-7 corroborated the procedural aspect of the FIR. He received the rukka, registered the FIR, and brought the FIR copy to the IO at the spot. He witnessed arrest and personal search of Javed and Shehnawaz and presence of the site plan and disclosures. He clarified the timeline of handing over the FIR and confirmed that the incident did not take place in his presence. His testimony affirms procedural regularity and adds credibility to the investigative process.
27. All the accused denied the allegations in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and claimed false implication. However, no defence evidence was led and no alternate version of events was put forth. Mere denial in the face of consistent and corroborated evidence by injured witness and eyewitnesses does not displace the prosecution case.
28. The summoning of Mohd. Gazi Alam under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed on 24.06.2022. Cognizance was taken, and it was clarified that earlier, due to error, proceedings were conducted with Mohd. Firoz, though evidence and charges related to Mohd. Gazi. Since Gazi Alam was later summoned and pleaded guilty, he was convicted vide order dated 02.06.2025. This strengthens the prosecution case as one of the named assailants admitted guilt, further reinforcing the credibility of PW-1 and PW-2.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES BEFORE DECIDING THE MATTER: Digitally signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 11 of 14 16:47:39 +0530
29. Before analysing the evidence on record, it is apposite to refer to the settled legal principles governing the offence alleged:
A. Ingredients of Section 325 IPC:
Section 325 IPC punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt. For conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove:
(i). That hurt was caused voluntarily;
(ii). That the hurt was "grievous" in nature as defined under Section 320 IPC;
(iii). That there was intention or knowledge to cause such grievous hurt.
B. Ingredients of Section 509 IPC:
Section 509 IPC punishes for the offence of insult to modesty of woman. For conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove:
(i). Use of any word/gesture/act;
(ii). Intended to insult the modesty of a woman;
(iii). Must be heard/seen by the woman or intended to intrude upon her privacy.
C. Section 34 IPC - Common Intention:
To bring home a charge under Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. Mere presence at the scene of crime without participation or prior meeting of minds is insufficient.
D. Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases:
It is a settled proposition that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In case of two plausible versions, the one favourable to the accused must be accepted. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it was held:
"The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and never shifts. The benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused."
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 12 of 14 Digitally signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:44 +0530
30. Ld. Defence counsel argued the investigation was tainted and as such cannot be relied upon. He further cited judgment in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramuly & Ors. where the IO deliberately delayed the FIR and initiated investigation prior to its registration. In the present case, IO recorded the complaint Ex.PW1/A promptly after ensuring medical aid to the injured. The FIR(Ex.AD-1) was registered the same morning, and no deliberate suppression is shown. Therefore, the above cited judgment is factually distinguishable and does not vitiate the investigation. Similarly, the judgment Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) is also inapplicable as unlike in the said judgment where key witnesses completely contradicted their earlier statements and even exonerated one accused, the witnesses here have remained consistent.
31. From the MLC (Ex. PW4/A) and testimony of PW-4 (Orthopaedician) and PW-5 (CMO), it stands proved that the complainant sustained fracture to her right forearm, which qualifies as "grievous hurt" under Clause 7 of Section 320 IPC. The manner of assault described by PW-1, corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3, and the absence of any contrary version or plausible explanation from the accused persons, clearly establish that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused grievous injury. The element of intention can be inferred from the collective act of beating and use of danda as narrated by the witnesses. Hence, offence under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
32. All four accused named in the initial FIR are shown to have arrived at the scene and jointly assaulted the complainant. Their coordinated actions and involvement in a singular physical act against PW-1 are indicative of common intention. Hence, Section 34 IPC is rightly invoked.
33. While PW-1 alleged that some women were abusing her and that her modesty was insulted, there is no specific deposition regarding any individual Digitally FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 13 of 14 signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:47 +0530 accused using such words. No precise utterance by specific individual has been placed on record, nor are there details as to what was said or by whom. PW-2 and PW-3 are also silent on any utterances amounting to insult to modesty. Mere mention of abusive behaviour in the course of a quarrel, without proof of targeted indecent language, does not fulfill the necessary legal ingredients of Section 509 IPC. Hence, the charge under Section 509 IPC is not proved.
FINAL ORDER:
34. In view of the detailed analysis above, this Court arrives at the following conclusion:
The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under Section 325/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons but failed to prove the charge under Section 509/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons namely Shehnawaz, Mohd. Sazid Mohd. Firoz, and Mohd. Javed are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC and are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
35. Copy of this judgment be provided to the convicts free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2025.12.02
Announced in the open Court KOMAL 16:47:52
+0530
Dated:02.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01(West)
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi/02.12.2025
Note: This judgment contains 14 (Fourteen) pages and each page has been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by komal komal Date:
2025.12.02 16:47:55 KOMAL +0530 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01(West) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi/02.12.2025 FIR NO.485/2023 STATE VS. SHEHNAWAZ & ORS. PAGE NO. 14 of 14