Delhi District Court
Shankar Yadav vs State And Ors on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE DISTRICT :
NORTH-WEST : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-014516-2025
Criminal Appeal No. 441/2025
Shankar Yadav S/o Sh. Yogi Yadav
R/o Village Karera, PO Mohan
Nagar, PS Sahibabad, District ... Appellant
Ghaziabad, UP.
Vs.
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Directorate of Prosecution
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Sardar Maninder Singh Gulati
S/o Sh. Gurucharan Singh
R/o PU-9, Pitampura, Delhi.
3. LRs of Late Sh. Bharat Singh
S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh
R/o Village Nandoli, PS Satpuli,
District Podi, Garhwal, Uttrakhand.
4. Baby Vijay Laxmi (injured)
D/o Bijender
5. Smt. Saroj W/o Vijender
(injured)
Both R/o D-14/169, Sector 3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. .....Respondents
Date of filing : 16.12.2025
Date of arguments : 12.02.2026
Date of Order : 21.02.2026
Appearance : Sh. Phool Kumar, Ld. counsel for appellant.
Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Prosecutor for State.
CA No. 441/2025
Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 1 of 18
Digitally signed
Nisha by Nisha Sahay
Sahay Saxena
Date: 2026.02.21
Saxena 17:06:50 +0530
ORDER
1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Judgment dated 04.10.2025 and Order on Sentence dated 19.11.2025, whereby the appellant / accused Shankar Yadav has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/337/304A IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of offence u/s 279 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of offence u/s 337 IPC,and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence u/s 304 (A) IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of which simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The relevant facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant Maninder Singh are that on 06.02.2008 at about 12.10 AM, he had gone for worship at Mata Kali Mandir, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, after parking his car bearing No. DL-3CAK-1309, near Footpath in front of Kali Mata Mandir. At about 12.15 AM, when he was coming out from the said Mandir, he saw that one vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55B-6942 coming from the side of Peeragarhi, in a rash and negligent manner, hit his above mentioned car, as well as the grill installed on the road, caused death of Bharat Singh and hit some persons including women and children, who were sitting on the footpath and thereafter struck against one tree and overturned. Thereafter, the driver and helper of the said vehicle ran away from the spot.
CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 2 of 18Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:06:55 +0530 On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the present case was registered. The vehicle in question was seized and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
3. After the cognizance was taken, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 279/337/304A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses in all.
S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW 1 Jai Singh Identified the dead body of
deceased.
2. PW 2 Ishwar Singh Identified the dead body of
deceased.
3. PW 3 SI Dharampal Duty Officer.
4. PW 4 Maninder Complainant.
Singh Gulati.
5. PW 5 Ranjit Singh Identified the dead body of
deceased.
6. PW 6 Retired SI DD Writer.
Madan Lal.
7. PW 7 Retired SI Joined investigation with IO.
Shishu Pal.
8. PW 8 Retired ASI Investigating Officer.
Krishan Singh.
9. PW 9 ASI Hakim Joined investigation with IO.
Singh.
10. PW 10 Sunil Kumar Owner of offending truck.
(no witness has been examined as PW 10) CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 3 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.02.21 Saxena 17:07:02 +0530
5. During trial, accused / appellant Shankar Yadav admitted the postmortem report bearing no. 91/08 pertaining to deceased, MLC of the injured bearing no. 1176/08, 1177/08, 1207/08 as well as the mechanical inspection reports of car bearing no. DL-3CAK-1309 and offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55B-6942.
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to him to seek his response, wherein accused denied his presence at the spot, and claimed false implication.
7. On appreciation of evidence and pleas raised by both the sides, Ld. Magistrate concluded that prosecution has successfully proved its case and accordingly recorded conviction of accused u/s 279/337/304(A) IPC.
8. The appeal has been filed on the grounds that in order to prove its case against the accused / appellant, it was mandatory for the prosecution to prove that there was rash and negligent driving by the accused on a public way endangering the human life, but the prosecution has failed to do so. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused / appellant. Further, it is submitted that had the offending vehicle been driven by accused / appellant, and as alleged by the prosecution the said vehicle overturned, there is nothing on record to show that either the accused or the helper sustained any injury in the said incident / accident. It is further CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 4 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Sahay Date: 2026.02.21 Saxena Saxena 17:07:13 +0530 submitted that investigation of the case has not been conducted in a fair and appropriate manner, in as much as the place of incident has not been photographed properly. It is further submitted that as per PW 4 his car was allegedly hit from back side but the mechanical inspection report of the car in question does not support his version. It is further submitted that complainant / PW 4 is an interested witness and his testimony does not inspire confidence. Further more, neither the alleged injured Saroj and Vijay Laxmi nor any other public persons were examined by the prosecution, to corroborate the version of PW 4. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the settled law that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused is to be considered. It is further contended that mere high speed of the vehicle does not amount to rash and negligent driving. It is submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set-aside.
9. I have heard Sh. Phool Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant / accused, Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record (including trial court record). It is pertinent to mention here that notices of the present appeal issued to respondent no. 2 to 5 have been received back unserved with the report "Left".
10. Arguing on behalf of accused / appellant, Ld. Counsel submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as no independent witness or even the CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 5 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Sahay Date: 2026.02.21 Saxena Saxena 17:07:20 +0530 alleged injured Saroj and Vijay Laxmi have not been examined, despite the fact that even as per the prosecution, other persons were also sitting / present at the spot. It is further argued that the manner in which the incident took place as described by the complainant, it is not possible that his car was damaged from rear side as well as front side, especially when PW 4 himself deposed that no other vehicle was parked either at back or in front of his car. It is settled law that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and has to discharge the onus of proving its case, but in the present case there are contradictions even in the testimonies of police witnesses, which go to the root of the matter. There is no independent corroboration of the testimony of complainant. The accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
11. On behalf of State, Ld. Prosecutor submitted that the case of the prosecution is duly proved, the star witness of the prosecution has remained consistent and cogent, there is no material contradiction in his testimony to demolish the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the appellant in the testimony of police witnesses, do not prove fatal to the prosecution case, as it is well settled law that even if there are some defects in the investigation carried out by the investigating agency, the same do not cause a dent in the prosecution case, and that the conviction of the accused can be based only on the sole testimony of injured, if the same is found reliable and trustworthy, and that in the present case, there is nothing on record to disbelieve her testimony.
CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 6 of 18Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:07:25 +0530
12. As a broad proposition revisional interference may be justified where (a) the decision is grossly erroneous, (b) there is no compliance with the provisions of law, (c) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence, (d) material evidence of parties is not considered and (e) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These instances are illustrative and not exhaustive. [Caetano Colaco v. Joao Radrigues, AIR 1966 Goa 32 : 1966 CrLJ 1412 (FB)] . The revisional Court is entitled to reverse the finding only when it reaches to the conclusion that finding of the trial Court is perverse and the jurisdiction cannot be invoked lightly. Even in the cases where it is possible to take two views on the same matter in the ordinary course the view taken by the Court below should not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. [Deo Chandra Dubey v. Gangotri Tiwari, 2010 CrLJ 1626 (1630) (Chha)].
13. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by Ld. Magistrate and I am of the considered opinion that all the contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for appellant before this court, have already been raised by him before the Ld. Magistrate, who has comprehensively dealt with the same, relying upon the various pronouncement of Hon'ble Superior Courts.
14. In the present case, the testimony of PW 4 is most crucial for adjudication of the case. PW 4 has categorically deposed that in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2008 at about 12.10 AM, he had gone to Kali Mata Mandir, after parking his car in front of the Mandir and at about 12.15AM, when he was CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 7 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:07:31 +0530 coming out of the Mandir, he saw that one vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55B-6942, being driven in a rash and negligent and in zig-zag manner, first hit his car, and thereafter hit other persons i.e. some women and children, who were sitting on the footpath and thereafter it struck against a tree and overturned due to the impact. Thereafter, the driver and helper of the said truck ran away from the spot. He had correctly identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, as well as the offending vehicle from the photographs, which have been placed on record. It is be noted that the said photographs have not been disputed by the accused.
15. PW 4 was cross examined and during his grilling cross examination, it was nowhere questioned or suggested that the offending vehicle was not being driven by the accused. PW 4 was given the suggestions to the effect that dipper of his car was not on when his car was parked or that he had improperly parked his car on the day of incidents, which were denied by him. The said suggestion put to PW 4 on behalf of accused itself establishes the presence of PW 4 and his car at the spot.
16. Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the prosecution case and as testified by PW 4, the offending vehicle allegedly being driven by accused in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car of the complainant from its back side and as per PW 4, no other vehicle was parked on the back or front of his car, but the photographs and mechanical inspection report, reveal that the car of the complainant was damaged from both sides i.e. rear side as well as front side, and it falsifies the prosecution's CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 8 of 18Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
2026.02.21 Saxena 17:07:35 +0530 version.
17. To controvert the said contention, Ld. Prosecutor argued that it is not in dispute that the vehicle of the complainant was parked adjacent to footpath, when it was hit by the offending vehicle. He further submitted that the fact that the car of the complainant got damaged from rear as well as front side rather speaks volume about the speed and velocity, with which the offending vehicle hit the car of the complainant, which thereafter might have struck against the footpath from front side, which damaged the car on front side as well.
18. I am in agreement with Ld. Prosecutor on this aspect, especially keeping in view the fact that the mechanical inspection report of the car in question, is admitted by the accused, which clearly mentions that there were fresh damages on the car.
Further the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle i.e. truck also reflects fresh damages on its front side, thereby corroborating the version of the prosecution that the offending vehicle firstly hit against the car of the complainant, and thereafter it hit the deceased and other injured persons, before it struck against the tree and overturned.
19. Ld. Trial Court has also observed that the mechanical inspection report in respect of the Truck bearing no. HR 55B 6942 also corroborates the oral testimony of PW 4 as it reflects extensive damage on the truck, and the said report remained uncontroverted as PW 8 was not cross examined on this aspect. Therefore, in the absence of any reason to disbelieve the cogent CA No. 441/2025 Digitally signed Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 9 of 18 Nisha by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
2026.02.21 Saxena 17:07:41 +0530 and credit worthy testimony of PW 4, duly corroborated with other evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that the accident in question took place, involving the truck of the accused bearing no. HR 55B 6942.
20. IO of the case PW 8 ASI Krishan Singh also stated in his testimony that on 05.06.2008, while he was on emergency duty, on receipt of DD no. 2A with respect to an accident, he along with Ct. Hakim reached at the spot i.e. Kali Mata Mandir, Outer Ring Road, Mangolpuri. There he found a truck bearing registration no. HR-55B-6942 and a car bearing registration no. DL-3CAK-1309 in accidental condition and met one Maninder Singh (owner of the said car), who informed him that the injured persons had already been shifted to SGM Hospital by PCR. There is no effective cross examination. Defence counsel has not disputed death of one Bharat Singh and injuries to Saroj W/o Bijender and Vijay Laxmi, aged 6 years. Rather he has admitted postmortem report and MLCs. PW Vijay Laxmi was not traceable. PW Saroj died and she was deleted from the list of witnesses.
21. Ld. counsel for appellant has further contended that as a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by Court. Further more, the prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain or whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. In order to support this contention, Ld. CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 10 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Sahay Date: 2026.02.21 Saxena Saxena 17:07:46 +0530 counsel for appellant has relied upon Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 133 (2006) Delhi Law Times 562.
22. However, it is to be noted that during lengthy trial of the court, the accused has no where taken the defence that the accident in question took place due to slippery road or fog or low visibility or any mechanical fault in the truck being driven by him and therefore at this stage before the appellate court, such a contention raised on behalf of the accused / appellant does not hold good.
23. As regards non-clicking of the photographs of the site and surrounding areas is concerned, the incident in question took place at about 12.15 AM, and it is not the case of the accused that due to adverse weather condition or slippery road, he could not control his truck. The rash and negligence on the part of the accused has been discussed in detail by Ld. Magistrate, citing certain pronouncements by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, and I am in agreement with Ld. Trial Court to the effect that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
24. Ld. defence counsel has contended that had the offending vehicle being driven by accused, he must have sustained severe injuries as the truck in question overturned. To controvert the said contention, Ld. Prosecutor has submitted that immediately after the incident in question, the accused ran away from the spot and was arrested only on 06.02.2008 at about 10.40 PM i.e. after about 22 hours of the incident in question. Further more, since the offence was bailable, the accused was released on CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 11 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.02.21 Saxena 17:07:51 +0530 police bail and accused was not got medically examined and as such there is no evidence on record to show whether the accused sustained any injury in the incident or not.
25. It is further submitted that PW 10 (PW11) Sunil Kumar, owner of the offending vehicle, in his cross examination by Ld. APP admitted it to be correct that in his reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act, he had stated that in the intervening night of 05- 06.02.2008, it was the accused Shankar Yadav, who was driving the said truck and he correctly identified the accused in the court. The said part of his testimony has not been controverted by the defence as no cross examination of this witness has been conducted on this aspect. It is well settled law that no cross examination on a particular aspect amounts to admission.
26. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellant with respect to false implication of the accused in the present case by the complainant, also does not hold good, as the defence has not been able to ascribe any motive to the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. The complainant and the accused were unknown to each other prior to the incident in question, and he does not have any oblique motive to falsely implicate him in criminal proceedings.
27. Plea of alibi has also been taken on behalf of the accused, but no such defence had ever been taken on behalf of the accused during cross examination of the star witness of the prosecution and not even a single suggestion had been given to him to the effect that at the relevant time, he was not present at CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 12 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:07:56 +0530 the spot. It has also not been specified, as to where the accused was actually present, if he was not present at the spot at that time. No documentary evidence has also been placed on record to show presence of the accused at any other place except the place of occurrence.
28. On examining the testimony of prosecution witnesses and related documents, I am convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove its case. Conviction has been rightly recorded by Ld. Magistrate. There is no illegality in the judgment of Ld. Magistrate and therefore no interference is called for. #^
29. I have also considered the sentence part of the impugned judgment. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has requested that u/s 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, appellant be released on probation, submitting that the appellant has already suffered a prolonged trial for about 18 years, he is not a previous convict, having a good reputation in society. It is further submitted that compensation of about Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded to one of the injured, while the other was untraceable.
30. In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon Parkash Chandra Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., 1990 Supreme (SC) 379, Aitha Chander Rao and State of A.P., AIR 1981 SC 60, A.P. Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 385, and Akshay Vs. The State of Maharastra, 2024 : BHC-AUG-14188.
CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 13 of 18Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:08:02 +0530
31. I have gone through the afore-cited judgments. In the first two judgments cited by Ld. defence counsel, facts of the case have not been narrated in detail. In the fourth case of Akshay (supra), the convict was just 18 years of age and was driving a motorbike and he was not a professional driver, as in the present case. In the case in hand the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a truck. In the said case of Akshay (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also referred, the case of Dalibir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677.
32. In the case of Dalbir (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance think that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 14 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:08:09 +0530 from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.
33. In case Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 208, Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in case of Dalbir Singh that probation is inappropriate in Section 304-A IPC fatalities.
34. Taking guidance from the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the fact that the truck was being driven by the accused in such a rash and negligent manner that firstly it hit the stationary Honda City Car, thereafter it struck against the grill, then hit the deceased and other injured persons and finally struck against a tree, before it overturned, I do not deem it a fit case where convict deserves to be released on probation.
35. The reckless operation of heavy commercial vehicles causing loss of human life represents a grave failure to exercise due caution while driving the vehicle. Such acts are borne of negligence and lack of respect for life and safety of others. Such a conduct merits no lenient treatment as sometimes misplaced sympathy fails to uphold justice for the victims' family. A deterrent sentence is imperative to compel accountability ensuring professional drivers recognized the consequences of their apathy. By enforcing strict punitive measures rather than probation, the judicial system must restore public faith in road CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 15 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:08:14 +0530 safety. A resolute punishment serves as the only adequate corrective tool to curb the rising fatal negligence on roads.
36. According to the report on "Road Accidents in India-2023" by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, a total number of 4,80,583 road accidents have been reported by States and Union Territories(UT) during the calender year 2023, claiming 1,72,890 lives and causing injuries to 4,62,825 persons. When automobiles have become death traps, any leniency shown to drivers of commercial vehicle who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. The most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in sentencing. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic. Hence, the appellant is not entitled be released on probation. The Trial Court has already taken into account all the facts and circumstances of the case.
37. One of the main contentions of the Counsel is that the trial has taken almost 18 years. However, the record reveals that some delay cause in the trial is also attributable to the accused. The accused who was on Police bail did not appear initially on 25.11.2009, 18.12.2010 and 27.09.2011. He presented himself only on 16.05.2012. He again absented himself on 19.12.2012. Charge was framed against the accused on 22.03.2013. Accused again absented himself on 12.08.2014. The accused did not appear from 17.07.2020 to 11.03.2024, during the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequently also and finally, the CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 16 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:08:18 +0530 judgment was pronounced convicting the accused on 04.10.2025. Thereafter also, he absented himself on 13.11.2025 and was finally sentenced on 19.11.2025.
38. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court is as under :
ORDER ON SENTENCE "Convict Shankar Yadav is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month for offence u/s 279 IPC and for a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the payment of the same simple imprisonment of one week. Further he is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month for offence u/s 337 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of which simple imprisonment for one week. Also, he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months f^or offence u/s 304(A) IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of which simple imprisonment of one month."
39. I have gone through the sentencing part of the impugned judgment and I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Magistrate has already taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence to the convict / appellant herein, and does not deserve any interference.
In view of the observations made, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence order. The appeal and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.
40. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court along CA No. 441/2025 Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 17 of 18 Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2026.02.21 17:08:23 +0530 with Trial Court Record. As prayed a copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Defence Counsel.
All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
41. File be consigned be record room after necessary compliance.
Nisha Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
Announced in the open court Sahay Date: 2026.02.21
today i.e. 21st January, 2026. Saxena 17:08:28 +0530
(NISHA SAHAY SAXENA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi
CA No. 441/2025
Shankar Yadav Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page 18 of 18