Delhi District Court
State vs Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu And Others on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 ( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 308/2018)
FIR No. 96/2018
Police Station Bawana
Charge sheet filed 308/323/341/452/354B/
Under Section 506/509/34 IPC
Charge framed Under 452/341/308/323/509/506(II)
Section 354/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu
S/o Sh. Narender Kumar
R/o H.No.211, Panna Dulan,
VPO Bawana, Delhi.
2. Akshay Sehrawat @ Goli
S/o Sh. Narender Kumar
R/o H.No.270, Panna Dulan,
VPO Bawana, Delhi.
3. Dikshit @ Deepak
S/o Lt. Sh.Ajeet Singh
R/o H.No.195/5, Panna Dulan,
VPO Bawana, Delhi.
4. Sameer
S/o Lt. Sh. Manak Ram
R/o H.No.940, Panna Rayan,
VPO Bawana, Delhi.
(Proceedings abated vide order dated
06.02.2024)
5. Sanjeet Sehrawat
S/o Lt. Sh.Ajeet Singh
R/o H.No.195/5, Panna Dulan,
SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana
State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. Digitally
signed by
VANDANA Page No. 1 of 29
VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10
17:59:22
+0530
VPO Bawana, Delhi.
......Accused persons
Date of institution 28.05.2018
Arguments concluded on 09.03.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 10.03.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that one complaint dated 01.03.2018 was received wherein complaint was made when the complainant on 28.02.2018 at about 9.30 p.m. she and her son Shailesh were standing in the balcony of their house, then she found some boys namely Goli, Dixit, Sanjeet, Ashu along with their associates standing in the tehsil ground. On seeing her, they started making indecent comments upon her. Then, her son Shailesh asked them to stop it, then all the accused persons trespassed into their house, abused them and also gave beatings to them. Accused Sameer with malafide intention put his hand on her breast and during this scuffle her wearing suit got torned. Meanwhile, her husband and another son Nitesh also came and the present FIR had been registered and tried to save them but they were also beaten by the accused persons.
2. During investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:
Page No. 2 of 292026.03.10 17:59:28 +0530 for the offence under Section 308/323/341/452/354B/506/509/34 IPC was filed in the court.
CHARGE
3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 08.01.2019 charge under Section 452/341/308/323/509/506(II)/34 IPC IPC was found to be made out against all accused persons and also charge under Section 354 IPC was found to be made against accused Sameer. The formal charge under Section 452/341/308/323/509/506(II)/34 IPC was framed upon all accused persons and charge under Section 354 IPC was also framed upon accused Sameer on the said date to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 07 witness in all.
Sl. No. Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No.
1. PW1 HC Chander Pal Duty Officer
2. PW2 HC Wahule Anil DD writer
3. PW3 Sh.Rajesh Public/eye witness
4. PW4 Smt.Raj Dulari Complainant
5. PW5 Sh. Shailesh Public/eye witness
6. PW6 Sh. Nitesh Public/eye witness
7. PW7 SI Ravinder Investigating Chhillar Officer SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: Page No. 3 of 29 2026.03.10 17:59:34 +0530 PW1 HC Chander Pal is duty officer. He deposed that on 01.03.2018 at about 5.40 pm., SI Ravinder Chhillar handed over him rukka, on the basis of which, he registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW1/C on the rukka. He also issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/C. He was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW2 HC Wahule Anil is DD writer. He deposed that in the intervening night of 27/28.02.2018, at about 9.50 p.m, wireless operator gave him information over regarding quarrel at H.No. 106, near Bazar Bawana. He entered the said information in DD register vide DD No. 88B Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he telephonically informed the contents of DD No.88B to SI Ravinder.
He was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW3 is Sh. Rajesh. His deposition is as under:
"On 28.02.2018, after hearing noise, I came down and found that Raj Dulari i.e. my wife was having injury on his forehead and many neighbours were gathered there. I could not see the face of the person who caused the injury to my wife as I was not present there.
I do not want to say anything else."
Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 17:59:39 Page No. 4 of 29 +0530 He was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. His cross- examination by Ld. Additional PP is as under:
"At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is now marked as Mark PW3/A. After going through the statement, witness stated that I never told the facts to the police as mentioned in the statement shown to me. It is wrong to suggest that on 28.02.2018, at around 9.30 p.m., after hearing the voice of my wife and my son Shailesh, I came down and saw that the resident of my village namely Goli was having a brick in his hand. It is wrong to suggest that accused Dixit and Sanjeet were having fatte/wooden plank in their hands and they were beating my son Shailesh with those wooden plank. It is wrong to suggest that accused Aashu, who was having wooden plank in his hand and his associate accused Sunny, who was having brick in his hand and were beating my wife. It is wrong to suggest that when I along with my son Nitesh tried to save my wife and son Shailesh, accused Sanjeet started beating me and accused Goli and Aashu started beating my son Nitesh and ran away from there after threatening us to kill us. It SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 5 of 29
17:59:45 +0530 is wrong to suggest that prior to that day also, around 2-3 times, I objected the abovesaid accused persons for having alcohol while sitting in Tehsil ground and abusing.It is wrong to suggest that I told my sons Nitesh and Shailesh about the same and asked them not to tell the same to my wife Raj Dulari so that she will not worry. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons mentioned above, caused the above said incident after entering my house in order to take reveng from me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not telling the truth before the court. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons that is why I am deposing falsely at their instance.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused perons namely Sanjeet and Akashy @ Aashu, who are present in court today and accused Dikshit and Akshay @ Goli, on the computer scree, who are present through VC.
I know the accused persons being residents of my native village but as I already told, I never saw the accused persons while committing the offence that is why, I cannot say if they are accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. Digitally signed by VANDANA Page No. 6 of 29 VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 17:59:51 +0530 persons being accused of the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons to save them."
He was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW4 is complainant Smt. Raj Dulari. Her deposition is as under:
"On 28.02.2018, I was present at my residence and heard some noise in the street. Some persons were quarreling with each other. I was watching the incident and suddenly one brick came towards me and hit on my foreheard, due to which I sustained injuries on my forehead.
Thereafter, sat down holding my foreheand and could not see the face of the person who caused the injury to me.
I do not want to say anything else."
She was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the State as she was resiling from her earlier statement. Her cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP is as under:
"At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards her complaint and witness has correctly her signatures at point A by saying that her signatures were taken by the police on blank papers. The complaint is now Ex.PW4/A. Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors.
VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 7 of 29
17:59:57 +0530 At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. running into 02 pages and witness correctly identified her signatures on both pages at point A, which is now Ex.PW4/B. At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. running into 01 page, which is now Mark PW4/X. The attention of the witness is drawn towards the site plan and witness correctly identified her signature at point A by saying that the said site plan was not prepared in her presence and police took her signatures on blank papers. The site plan is now Ex.PW4/C. It is wrong to suggest that on 28.02.2018, at around 9.30 p.m., I along with my son Shailesh was present in the gallery of my house and were walking. It is wrong to suggest that I saw accused Goli, who is resident of my native village was standing in tehsil ground, situated in front of my house, along with his associates namely Dixit, Sanjeet, Aashu and other. It is wrong to suggest that all of them started passing filthy comments towards me after seeing me. It is wrong to suggest that I told my son Shailesh about the SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: Page No. 8 of 29 2026.03.10 18:00:02 +0530 same and he asked the accused persons not to do the same. It is wrong to suggest that on this, all the accused persons mentioned above, entered into my house and started abusing us and beating us. It is wrong to suggest that I along with my son Shailesh tried to enter the room to save ourselves but all the accused persons restrained us from entering. It is wrong to suggest that in the meanwhile, accused Sameer (since expired) touched my breast inappropriately due to which my wearing suit got torn. It is wrong to suggest that after listening my hue and cry, my husband Rajesh and my another son Nitesh also reached there from upstairs to downstairs and all the accused persons started beating them also. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons ran away from there after threatening us to kill us.
It is wrong to suggest that on the next day, all the accused persons came on bikes in side street of my house and started honking and by raising their volume stated that "hum tumhe chhorenge nahi". It is wrong to suggest that I told the police that accused Dixit and Sanjeet were having wooden planks in their hands and accused Sameer (since expired) were having bricks in their Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:00:09 Page No. 9 of 29 +0530 hands. It is wrong to suggest that accused Dixit and Sanjeet gave beatings to my son Shailesh and accused Sameer gave beatings to me. It is wrong to suggest that accused Goli, who was having brick in his hand and accused Aashu who was having wooden plank in his hand entered into my house and accused Goli started beating my son Shailesh and accused Aashu started beating me and both of them started abuses us. It is wrong to suggest that prior to the above said incident, on 2-3 occasions my husband objected the accused persons as they used to had alcohol and abused while sitting in Tehsil Ground and I was not aware of that, at that time. It is wrong to suggest that I came to know about the abovesaid fact at the time when my husband was giving statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I showed the spot of incident to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons being residents of my native village. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused persons namely Sanjeet and Akashy @ Aashu, who are present in court today and accused Dikshit and SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: Page No. 10 of 29 2026.03.10 18:00:15 +0530 Akshay @ Goli, on the computer screen, who are present through VC.
I know the accused persons being residents of my native village but as I already told, I never saw the accused persons while committing the offence that is why, I cannot say if they are accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused persons being accused of the present case.
At this stage, the MHC(M) has produced the case property in white cloth pullanda sealed with the seal of RC, which is clearly visible and not tampered. The case particulars are also mentioned on white cloth pullanda. The seal is broken and pullanda is found containing one black and yellow striped gown/nighty. The gown is found torn from the back side. Same is shown to the witness and she stated that she does not know anything about the gown/nighty shown to her. She also stated that she never gave the said gown/nighty to the police regarding the present case and the gown shown to her does not belong to her.
For the purpose of identification, the gown is given Ex.P1.
It is wrong to suggest that I myself handed over the gown/nighty shown to me, to the police and today I SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:Page No. 11 of 29
2026.03.10 18:00:31 +0530 am deliberately not identifying the said gown. It is wrong to suggest that in my presence, police seized the said gown. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of accused persons with respect to the identification of the gown. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons and deposed falsely to save them from the present case being resident of same village.
She was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW5 is eye witness Sh. Shailesh. His deposition is as under:
"On 28.02.2018, I was present at my residence and heard some noise in the street. Some persons were quarreling with each other. My mother sustained injuries as one brick came towards her and hit on her forehead and she sat down by holding her forehead and I could not see the face of the person who caused the injury to her.
I do not want to say anything else".
He was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. His cross- examination by Ld. Additional PP is as under:
"At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards his statement SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally signed State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 Page No. 12 of 29 18:00:37 +0530 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. running into 01 page, which is now Mark PW5/A. It is wrong to suggest that on 28.02.2018, at around 9.30 p.m., I along with my mother Smt.Rajdulari was present in the gallery of my house and were walking. It is wrong to suggest that I saw accused Goli, who is resident of my native village was standing in tehsil ground, situated in front of my house, along with his associates namely Dixit, Sanjeet, Aashu and Sameer. It is wrong to suggest that all of them started passing filthy comments towards my mother after seeing her. It is wrong to suggest that she told me about the same and I asked the accused persons not to do the same.
It is wrong to suggest that on this, accused Dixit and Sanjeet, who had wooden fatta in their hands and accused Sameer, who had brick in his hand, entered into my house and accused Dixit and Sanjeet started beating me and accused Sameer started beating my mother. It is wrong to suggest that after sometime, accused Goli, who was having brick in his hand and accused Ashu, who was having wooden plank/fatta in his hand entered into my house and accused Goli started beating me and accused Ashu started beating my mother and SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors.
Digitally signed by Page No. 13 of 29 VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:00:47 +0530 both of them abused us. It is wrong to suggest that I along with my mother tried to enter the room to save ourselves but all the accused persons restrained us from entering. It is wrong to suggest that in the meanwhile, accused Sameer (since expired) touched my mother's breast inappropriately due to which her wearing suit got torn. It is wrong to suggest that after listening our hue and cry, my father Rajesh and my brother Nitesh also reached there from upstairs to downstairs and all the accused persons started beating them also. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons ran away from there after threatening us to kill us. It is wrong to suggest that prior to the above said incident, on 2-3 occasions my father objected the accused persons as they used to had alcohol and abused while sitting in Tehsil Ground and my father told me and my brother about the same but refused us to tell the same to our mother so that she would not be worried. It is wrong to suggest that on the day of incident, I could not give my statement to the police due to pain and I gave my statement to the police on 05.04.2018. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons being residents of my native village. It is wrong to Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 14 of 29
18:00:55 +0530 suggest that I am deposing falsely.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused persons namely Sanjeet and Akashy @ Aashu and Dikshit, who are present in court today and accused Akshay @ Goli, on the computer screen, who is present through VC.
I know the accused persons being residents of my native village but as I already told, I never saw the accused persons while committing the offence that is why, I cannot say if they are accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused persons being accused of the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely"
He was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW6 is eye witness Sh. Nitesh. His deposition is as under:
"On 28.02.2018, after hearing noise, I came down and found that Raj Dulari i.e. my mother was having injury on her forehead and many neighbours were gathered there. I could not see the face of the person who caused the injury to my mother as I was not present there.
I do not want to say anything else."
Digitally signed by SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:01:02 Page No. 15 of 29 +0530 He was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. His cross- examination by Ld. Additional PP is as under:
"At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is now marked as Mark PW6/A. After going through the statement, witness stated that I never told the facts to the police as mentioned in the statement shown to me.
It is wrong to suggest that on 28.02.2018, at around 9.30 p.m., I along with my father was present on the first floor in room of my house and after hearing the voice of my mother and my brother Shailesh, we came down and saw that the resident of my village namely Goli was having a brick in his hand. It is wrong to suggest that accused Dixit and Sanjeet were having fatte/wooden plank in their hands and they were beating my brother Shailesh with those wooden plank. It is wrong to suggest that accused Aashu, who was having wooden plank in his hand and his associate accused Sameer, who was having brick in their hand and were beating my mother. It is wrong to suggest that when I along with my father tried to save them, accused Sanjeet started beating my father and accused Goli and Aashu Digitally signed by VANDANA SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana VANDANA Date:
State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. 2026.03.10 18:01:08 +0530 Page No. 16 of 29 started beating me and ran away from there after threatening us to kill us. It is wrong to suggest that prior to that day also, around 2-3 times, my father objected the abovesaid accused persons for having alcohol while sitting in Tehsil ground and abusing. It is wrong to suggest that my father told us about the same and asked us not to tell the same to our mother so that she will not worry. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons mentioned above, caused the above said incident after entering my house. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not telling the truth before the court. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons that is why I am deposing falsely at their instance.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused persons namely Sanjeet and Akashy @ Aashu and Dikshit, who are present in court today and accused Akshay @ Goli, on the computer screen, who is present through VC.
I know the accused persons being residents of my native village but as I already told, I never saw the accused persons while committing the offence that is why, I cannot say if they are accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally signed State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. by VANDANA VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 17 of 29
18:01:22 +0530 identifying the accused persons being accused of the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons to save them"
He was not cross examined by ld. Counsels for accused persons despite opportunity being given.
PW7 is IO SI Ravinder Chhillar. He deposed that 0n 28.02.2018, one DD No.88B was marked to him for inquiry regarding quarrel. He along with Ct.Sandeep went to the spot of incident but nobody found present there and he came to know that the injured had already been taken to the MV hospital.
Thereafter, he along with Ct.Sandeep went to the hospital and met the injured Rajesh, Raj Dulari, Shailesh and Nitesh. At that time, they refused to give their statement due to pain. He kept that DD pending.
He further deposed that on 01.03.2018, at around 5.30 p.m., complainant Raj Dulari along with her husband Rajesh and one son Nitesh came to the PS. He recorded the complaint of Raj Dulari and prepared rukka, Ex.PW7/A and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he along with Ct.Gajraj and above mentioned persons went to the spot of incident and prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that there was construction work going on near the spot of incident that is why the weapon of offence i.e. wooden planks and bricks used by the accused persons could not be identified by the witnesses. He recorded the statement of Nitesh and Rajesh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that the complainant Raj Dulari along with her husband and son Nitesh came to the PS and handed over her torned clothes i.e. Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 Page No. 18 of 2918:01:29 +0530 gown/nighty to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, he along with Ct.Gajraj went to the residence of accused Dixit and Sanjeet but they could not be found there. Thereafter, they went to the house of Akshay @ Ashu but he was also not found there. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Akasy @ Goli but he was not found there. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Sameer but he was not found there.
He further deposed that on 08.03.2018, the result on the MLC of injured Shailesh was received by him and the concerned doctor opined the nature of injury as grievous and he added Section 308 IPC against the accused persons. He further deposed that on 09.03.2018, he along with Ct.Ladu Ram went to the residence of accused Dixit and at that time, he was found there. He arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/D. Thereafter, he went to the residence of accused Akshay @ Goli, Akashy @ Ashu and Sameer respectively and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/E, Ex.PW7/F and Ex.PW7/G. He also conducted their personal search vide personal search memos Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/I and Ex.PW7/J respectively. He also recorded the disclosure statement of above mentioned four accused persons vide memo Ex.PW7/K, Ex.PW7/L, Ex.PW7/M and Ex.PW7/N. Thereafter, accused persons were sent to hospital for their medical examination and thereafter, they were produced before the concerned court and sent to JC by the concerned court.
He further deposed that on 22.03.2018, he along with Ct.Amit went to Bawana Chowk in search of accused Sanjeet as Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors.
VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 19 of 29
18:01:35 +0530 secret information was received by him regarding his whereabouts. After sometime, the secret informer identified one person, who was sitting on a bench as accused Sanjeet. He apprehended him and interrogated him. He further deposed that he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/O and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/P. He also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW7/Q. Thereafter, accused Sanjeet was also got medically examined and produced before the concerned court. He was sent to JC by the concerned court. He identified the one black and yellow striped gown/nighty torn from the back side Ex.P1.
Documents produced on behalf of prosecution Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/B Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/C Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/A DD No. 88B Ex.PW4/A Complaint Ex.PW4/B Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW4/C Site plan
Ex.PW7/A Rukka
Ex.PW7/B Seizure memo of the nighty/gown
Ex.PW7/C Arrest memo of accused Dixit
Ex.PW7/D Personal search memo of accused
Dixit
Ex.PW7/E Arrest memo of accused Akshay @
Goli
Ex.PW7/F Arrest memo of accused Akshay @
Ashu
Ex.PW7/G Arrest memo of accused Sameer
Ex.PW7/H Personal search memo of accused
Akshay @ Goli
Ex.PW7/I Personal search memo of accused
Akshay @ Ashu
Ex.PW7/J Personal search memo of accused
Digitally
SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by
VANDANA
State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10
18:01:43
Page No. 20 of 29
+0530
Sameer
Ex.PW7/K Disclosure statement of accused
Dixit
Ex.PW7/L Disclosure statement of accused
Akshay @ Goli
Ex.PW7/M Disclosure statement of accused
Akshay @ Ashu
Ex.PW7/N Disclosure statement of accused
Sameer
Ex.PW7/O Arrest memo of accused Sanjeet
Ex.PW7/P Personal search memo of accused
Sanjeet
Ex.PW7/Q Disclosure statement of accused
Sanjeet
List of Material Objects Ex.P1 Nighty/Gown STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 294 CR.P.C.
5. Vide their separate joint statement, accused persons have admitted the MLC of Raj Dulari as Ex.A1, MLC of Rajesh as Ex.A2, MLC of Nitesh as Ex.A3 and MLC of Shailesh as Ex.A4.
6. The prime prosecution witness i.e. PW4 complainant Smt. Raj Dulari and eye witnesses PW3 Sh.Rajesh, PW5 Sh.Shailesh and PW6 Sh.Nitesh on whose statement the entire prosecution case rests, had not supported the case of the prosecution on the point of identity of the accused persons and denied all the allegations levelled against the accused persons and since there was no incriminating evidence which had been Digitally signed SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:01:51 Page No. 21 of 29 +0530 brought forth against the accused persons, no formal police witness except IO PW7 SI Ravinder Chillar was examined and PE was closed as well as statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with vide orders dated 09.03.2026.
It is pertinent to mention here that proceedings qua accused Sameer stands abated vide order dated 06.02.2024.
7. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard Dr. Sarita Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Narender Kumar, ld. Counsel for accused Dixit, Sanjeet and Akshay @ Goli and by Sh. Sudeep Sharma, Ld. Dy. Chief LADC for accused Akshay @ Ashu.
9. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are of serious nature. It was further argued that all the witnesses have clearly proved the chain and the manner of offence and prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Per contra, Sh. Narender Kumar, ld. Counsel for accused Dixit, Sanjeet and Akshay @ Goli and by Sh. Sudeep Sharma, Ld. Dy. Chief LADC for accused Akshay @ Ashu have argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. It is further argued that prime prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution and denied all the Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:01:59 Page No. 22 of 29 +0530 allegations levelled against the accused persons and there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons deserve acquittal.
11. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
12. All the accused persons had been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 452/341/308/323/509/506(II)/34 IPC. Accused Sameer had also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, proceedings against
13. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 452 IPC "Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.".
SECTION 341 IPC "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana Digitally signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 Page No. 23 of 29 18:02:06 +0530 which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both"
SECTION 308 IPC "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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
SECTION 323 IPC "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
SECTION 509 IPC "Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
Digitally signed by SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:02:12 Page No. 24 of 29 +0530 SECTION 506(II) IPC Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both"
SECTION 354 IPC "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty1, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 Page No. 25 of 2918:02:18 +0530 mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
16. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the Digitally SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana signed by VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors.
VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 Page No. 26 of 2918:02:24 +0530 testimony of PW4 Smt. Raj Dulari/complainant, eye witnesses/PW3 Sh.Rajesh, PW5 Sh.Shailesh and PW6 Sh. Nitesh. The complainant/PW4 did not depose anything with respect to misbehaving or making indecent comments. She did not utter even a single word in reference to her complaint Ex.PW4/A. She only testified with respect to the injury received by her and on that also, she deposed nothing against the accused persons as she testified that she was watching an incident of quarreling in the neighbourhood and suddenly one brick hit her on her forehead, due to which she sustained injury but she could not see the face of the person, who caused injury to her. She completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, PW5 namely Shailesh i.e. son of the complainant, who according to the complaint was present on the spot with her mother/ complainant but he also did not utter incriminating against the accused persons and testified that her mother sustained injury as one brick hit her on her forehead. Further, the eye witness i.e. husband of the complainant and other son Nitesh also deposed nothing against the accused persons. From the above, it is evident that all the star/material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Despite a lengthy cross examination by the Ld. Additional PP for the State, nothing could be culled out against the accused persons. All those witnesses resiled from their earlier statement, they completely turned hostile on the point of identification of accused persons and denied that they inflicted any injury to them.
Digitally signed by SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:2026.03.10 Page No. 27 of 29
18:02:30 +0530 There is settled law as stated in Abdul Sayad Vs. State of M.P. 2010 AIR SCW 5701 and also in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4SCC 324 the testimony of injured witness as his own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time of incident and it is unlikely that he would spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. However, in the present case the injured persons themselves who are the prime prosecution witness have denied that it was the accused persons who assaulted them and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
17. Since the prime witness of the prosecution case namely PW4 Smt. Raj Dulari/complainant, eye witnesses/PW3 Sh.Rajesh, PW5 Sh.Shailesh and PW6 Sh. Nitesh have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no technical/ digital evidence on record in the form of any CCTV Footage and considering the overall evidence on record, especially the testimony of complainant Smt.Raj Dulari who was examined as PW-4, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has remain miserably failed to establish its case against the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Akashy Sehrawat @ Ashu, Akshay Sehrawat @ Goli, Dixit and Sanjeet Sehrawat are acquitted for offence under Section 452/341/308/ 323/509/506(II)/34 IPC as charged against them.
Digitally signed by SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana VANDANA State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors. VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:02:35 Page No. 28 of 29 +0530
18. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.03.10 18:02:43 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Vandana) Court on 10.03.2026 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 29 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 308/2018, FIR No. 96/18, PS Bawana State Vs. Akshay Sehrawat @ Ashu and Ors.Page No. 29 of 29