Dismissing Sahni's appeal, the HC held, "This court finds that the guilt of the appellant for the murder of the deceased has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and duly supported by circumstantial evidence by the prosecution. (File)The Delhi High Court Monday upheld the life sentence and conviction awarded to a man who shot dead DU student Radhika Tanwar in South Delhi’s Dhaula Kuan in 2011.
Tanwar, who was 20 at the time, was shot on a foot-overbridge in Satya Niketan area of South Delhi on March 8, 2011. The deceased was a resident of Naraina village and a BA second-year student at Ram Lal Anand College. During investigation, it was found that Tanwar had been shot in her back by Vijay Saini, who “used to follow the deceased a few years prior to the incident”.
Saini, before the HC, had challenged the trial court’s verdict of October 31, 2017, convicting him for offences punishable under IPC section 302 (murder), and sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. He had also challenged the sentencing order of November 7, 2017 where he was handed down life imprisonment for murder along with a fine of Rs 2,000.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the appellant (Saini) beyond reasonable doubt and held that the death of the deceased was “clearly homicidal in nature caused due to firearm injury”, evident from the testimony of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.
In its 26-page order, the HC held that even though there were “no direct eyewitnesses” to the incident of shooting, the evidence of two witnesses was consistent as both had heard a sound of a gunshot and both had seen the girl on the ramp of the flyover. And while one had seen a boy standing next to her with something hidden under his shirt, the other had seen a boy running away with a pistol in his hand.
The HC noted that both witnesses had identified Saini in front of the police as well as before the trial court, and “being independent and not interested witnesses, they had no ground or reason to falsely implicate” him.
The HC held that the motive for killing the deceased was evident from the testimonies of the men from her village, who said that Saini was caught two-three years ago in their village, and they had intervened and beaten him up when Tanwar pointed out that he was stalking and teasing her.
The two men said that they had then taken Saini to her house, where her father had also beaten him up, and this was corroborated by the testimony of the father. Further, the father had identified Saini when he saw his photo on television. The two men had also identified Saini “as the same person” after they were called to the police station.
The HC also noted that the murder weapon was recovered at the “instance of the appellant” (Saini). The HC also noted that Saini had fled to Mumbai and his associates, the co-accused with whom he had stayed with after the incident, had fled to their native place at district Sitapur in Uttar Pradesh.
Dismissing Saini’s appeal, the HC held, “This court finds that the guilt of the appellant for the murder of the deceased has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and duly supported by circumstantial evidence by the prosecution. Consequently, this court finds no error in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence by the learned trial court.”