Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Sahrawat on 29 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Nitin Sehrawat
S/o Sh. Pradeep Sehrawat
R/o H. No.C-35A, Shyam Vihar,
Phase-2, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
SHIVALI 2. Pradeep Sehrawat
BANSAL S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2025.10.29
R/o H. No.C-35A, Shyam Vihar,
16:56:54 +0530
Phase-2, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 499/22
FIR No. 159/22
PS Chhawla
CNR No. DLSW01-006634-2022
Charge-sheet filed U/s 307/34/120B IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 307/34 IPC
Nitin Sehrawat and Pradeep
Sehrawat
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 25/27 Arms Act
Pradeep Sehrawat
Date of institution of case 23.06.2022
Date of case received to Sessions 02.07.2022
Court
Date of arguments 18.10.2025
Date of judgment 29.10.2025
Decision Acquittal
FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 1 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable u/ss. 307/120B/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2022 at about 9.15 p.m., upon receipt of DD No.107A ASI Rajkumar along with Constable Ranglal reached the spot ie Main Stand, Chhawla Village, Delhi. On reaching there it transpired that injured-Deepak Shokeen has been shifted to SHIVALI an unknown hospital. One empty shell and bullet lead were BANSAL found lying on the spot. Crime Team was called and spot was Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.10.29 got inspected. Thereafter, on receipt of another DD No.15A, 16:57:07 +0530 it revealed that injured Deepak Shokeen is admitted in Venkateshwar Hospital. MLC revealed gun shot injury on the complainant. In his statement, complainant Deepak stated that on 9.3.2022 at about 9.15 PM he was consuming juice at a juice shop on the road opposite his house. Nearby a person was selling fruits on his cart. Complainant saw that one person was arguing with the fruit seller on account of money transactions. When complainant approached near them, he saw that his known to person namely Bablu was arguing with the fruit vendor. When complainant advised Bablu not to argue with him, he also started arguing with the complainant. One other person, aged about 35-40 years and younger son of Bablu namely Ninny, who were also sitting in the car, got down and younger son of Bablu also started arguing with the complainant. Those two persons asked Bablu to shoot the complainant and, accordingly, Bablu fired a gunshot on the FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 2 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
chest of the complainant. Thereafter, Ninni, Bablu and the third person fled away from the spot in the car. During investigation, complainant came to know that real name of Bablu is Pradeep Sehrawat and real name of Ninni is Nitin Sehrawat. Complainant stated that he did not know the third person who accompanied these persons. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
3. During investigation, the third person's name got revealed as Surender. As he was not identified by the complainant to be involved in the incident during TIP proceedings and no other SHIVALI BANSAL evidence was found against him, Surender was not made Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.10.29 accused in the present case.
16:57:14 +05304. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, both the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/s 307/34/120B IPC and u/S 25/27 Arms Act.
5. Vide order dated 20.07.2022, charge for offences punishable u/s 307/34 IPC was framed against accused Nitin Sehrawat and Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu and separate charge for the offences punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses.
7. PW1 Deepak Shokeen deposed that on 9.3.2022 at about 8.30/9 p.m he was standing opposite his house. Some persons were purchasing fruit from a fruit vendor. Those persons were denying to give money to fruit vendor. PW1 intervened and FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 3 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
asked them to pay money for the fruit purchased by them but those persons started arguing with him and threatened him. One of those persons said, "Tu mere ko nahin jaanta". When PW1 replied "mai toh nahin janta", then that person uttered "ab jaan jayega". Meanwhile the said person fired a bullet on his chest and then all of them fled away from the spot. PW1 further deposed that his brother took him to Venkateshwara hospital in Dwarka and from there he was referred to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment. PW1 was discharged after one month of the incident. PW1 deposed that he did not know those assailant and cannot identify them as it SHIVALI was dark when the incident happened with him. BANSAL 8. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and his Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL statement dated 9.3.2022 was read over to him but PW1 Date: 2025.10.29 16:57:20 +0530 denied to have made any such statement to Police. PW1 further denied the suggestion that accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu was arguing with fruit vendor and when PW1 intervened, accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu started arguing with him also. PW1 further denied the suggestion that younger son of accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu namely Nitin Sehrawat @ Ginni was sitting on the driving seat of the vehicle and he also started arguing with him. PW1 further denied the suggestion that during the arguments, accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu fired a bullet on his chest. PW1 denied having made statement-Mark PX1 and Mark PX2 to Police. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons or due to settlement he is deliberately not identifying accused persons FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 4 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
being culprits of offence. PW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
9. PW2 Manjeet deposed that on 1.4.2022 he had produced a digital video recorder (DVR) containing CCTV footage dated 9.3.2022. He proved its seizure memo as Ex.PW2/A and certificate u/S 65B in this regard as Ex.PW2/B. In his cross- examination, PW2 stated that DVR was not played in his presence by the IO at any point of time.
10. PW3 ASI Raj Kumar proved sketch of empty cartridge and bullet as Ex.PW3/A; tehrir as Ex.PW3/B; seizure memo of clothes, blood sample and sample seal as Ex.PW3/C and Digitally signed by seizure memo of empty cartridge and bullet as Ex.PW3/D. SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.29 Empty cartridge and bullet were proved as Ex.PW3/P1 and 16:57:27 +0530 Ex.PW3/P2 respectively. In his cross-examination, PW3 denied the suggestion that all the relevant documents were prepared in a mechanical manner while sitting in Police Station.
11. PW4 Inspector Arun Dagar proved the documents relating to accused Nitin Sehrawat vis. arrest memo as Ex.PW4/A; personal search memo as Ex.PW4/B; age memo as Ex.PW4/C; disclosure statement as Ex.PW4/D; seizure memo of black colour lower as Ex.PW4/E; and seizure memo of white colour Reebok shoes as Ex.PW4/F. PW4 also proved black colour lower of accused Nitin as Ex.PW4/P1 and his Reebok shoes as Ex.PW4/P-2.
12. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 stated that he arrested accused Nitin at about 7.10 P.M. PW4 obtained PC remand of accused Nitin for search of FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 5 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
remaining accused persons and recovery of case property.
13. PW5 SI Amit Punia deposed that on receiving secret information, he apprehended accused Pradeep Sehrawat. PW5 proved his disclosure statement as Ex.PW5/A; his arrest memo as Ex.PW5/B, his personal search memo as Ex.PW5/C; and the sketch of the country made pistol as Ex.PW5/D. PW5 also proved disclosure statement of accused Surender as Ex.PW5/E and his arrest memo as Ex.PW5/F. PW5 further deposed that TIP of accused Surender was conducted on 7.6.2022 but complainant could not identify him. No article was recovered from him and no evidence could be collected against accused Surender and, therefore, he was released from the present case. Exhibits SHIVALI BANSAL were sent to FSL. FSL Results are Ex.PX-13, Ex.PX-14 and Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Ex.PX15. PW5 correctly identified both the accused persons.
Date: 2025.10.2916:57:33 +0530 14. In his examination-in-chief conducted on 11.9.2025, PW5 proved the country-made pistol; two cases of the cartridges along with two fired bullets as Ex.PW5/P-1 (Colly.) and key & Mahindra car bearing registration No.HR26D5933 as Ex.PW5/P-2 (colly.).
15. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW5 stated that no public person was joined in investigation at the time of recovery of key, car and pistol from the accused. PW5 denied the suggestion that pistol has been planted upon the accused persons.
16. In their statement recorded u/s 330 BNSS on 16.7.2025, both the accused persons admitted FIR as Ex.PX-1; Tehrir as Ex.PX-2, Certificate u/S 65B IEA as Ex.PX-3; Site Plan FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 6 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
without scale as Ex.PX-4; DD No.15A dated 10.3.2022 as Ex.PX-5; DD No.107A dated 9.3.2022 as Ex.PX-6; DD No.5 dated 10.3.2022 as Ex.PX-7; MLC No.41B of injured Deepak Shokeen as Ex.PX-8; Medical Treatment document of injured Deepak Shokeen as Ex.PX.9 (colly.); TIP proceedings of accused Surender as Ex.PX-10; sanction u/s 39 Arms Act as Ex.PX-11; FSL result Bio Division as Ex.PX-12; FSL result Co. Division as Ex.PX13; Certificate u/S 65B (4) ( c) IEA as Ex.PX14; FSL Ballistic as Ex.PX15; Pointing Out memo of place of incident of accused Nitin as Ex.PX16; pointing out memo of incident of accused Pradeep as Ex.PX17 and seizure memo of car bearing No.HR26CD5933 as Ex.PX-18.
17. In view of the joint statement u/S 330 BNSS of both the accused persons, witnesses mentioned at serial Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, Digitally signed by 12, 13, 15 and in supplementary charge-sheet witnesses SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.29 namely Dr. Naresh, Dr. Vinay, Dr. V R Anand (FSL) and 16:57:39 +0530 Addl. DCP, Dwarka-I, District were dropped. Vide order dated 11.9.2025, at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State, prosecution evidence was closed.
18. Statement u/s 313 CrPC (351 BNSS) of accused persons Nitin Sehrawat and Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu were recorded, wherein accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
19. Accused persons have not led any evidence in support of their defence.
FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 7 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
20. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Arun Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
21. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that though star witness ie PW1 has turned hostile, prosecution has been able to prove its case with the testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5. Accused Pradeep Sehrawat made disclosure statement he had fired gunshot upon the complainant and his son and one another person had instigated him to do so. Accused Nitin Sehrawat also made disclosure statement that he had asked his father Pradeep Sehrwat to fire gunshot upon the complainant. Recovery of the countrymade pistol used in the present incident has also been made from the accused Pradeep and, accordingly, accused persons are liable to be SHIVALI BANSAL convicted in the present case.
Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.10.29 16:57:45 +053022. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per Ld. Counsel, complainant/injured PW1 did not identify the accused persons in the court to be the offenders involved in the present case. So far as alleged recovery from accused persons is concerned, no independent witness was joined during search of the accused persons as mandated under the law, hence, the same is not relevant. Ld. Counsel has prayed that accused persons are liable to be acquitted in the present case.
23. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 8 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law.
24. In his evidence recorded on 15.9.2022, PW1 specifically stated that he cannot identify those persons who attacked him as it was dark when the incident took place. Despite cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, nothing incriminating has come out against the accused persons in the evidence of both these prosecution witnesses. PW1 denied accused persons to be involved in the incident who fired gun shot upon him and/or indulged in arguments with him on the day of incident. PW1 even denied contents of statement u/s 161 Cr.PC being made to Police. PW1 denied the suggestion that Digitally signed by SHIVALI he has been won over by both the accused persons or due to SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.29 16:57:51 +0530 settlement with them, he is not supporting the correct version of his statement.
25. So far as alleged recovery of the country made pistol from accused Pradeep Sehrawat is concerned, no public witnesses were joined during search of the accused persons at the time of alleged recovery. Therefore, it remains unclear, if at all any recovery was made from the accused persons. The accused persons are not identified as assailant. It cannot be ruled out that recovery was planted upon them.
26. As per FSL result-Ex.DX-13, there was insufficient image data in the CCTV recording as the relevant image of object was far away from the CCTV Camara.
27. As per FSL result (Ballistics Division)-Ex.PX-15, the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence cartridge case and on test fired FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 9 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.
cartridge cases were compared and examined under comparison and were not found identical. Hence, the evidence cartridge has not been fired through the improvised pistol. Similarly, characteristics of striation marks present on evidence bullet marked exhibit EB1 and on test fired recovered bullets marked as TB1 to TB4 were compared and were not found identical. Thus, FSL results do not support the prosecution story and it shows that the gun shot was not fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. A discovery made consequent upon the disclosure statement of accused persons is admissible in evidence but the same is not reliable in the instant case as the involvement Digitally signed by SHIVALI of accused persons in commission of offence is not made out. SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.29 16:57:59 In such circumstances, the disclosure statement of the +0530 accused persons and recovery of the pistol recovery are discarded as being unreliable.
28. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence produced before the Court. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal Court has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 10 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another. result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused persons and consequential acquittal.
29. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against both the accused persons and u/s 25/27 Arms Act against accused Pradeep Sehrawat beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Nitin Sehrawat and Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and accused Pradeep Sehrawat @ Bablu is also acquitted from commission of offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
31. Bail bonds of the accused persons except bail bonds filed under section 437A Cr.PC stands cancelled. Their sureties stand discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties. Case property, if any, be released to the rightful owners.
32. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedSHIVALI by SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.29 16:58:07 +0530 (SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 29.10.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI (SA) FIR No. 159/22. Page No. 11 of 11.
PS Chhawla State Vs. Nitin Sehrawat & another.