The appeal challenging the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man who shot dead Radhika Tanwar, Delhi University student near Satya Niketan on Dhaula Kuan foot over bridge in March 2011.
This happened after the dead refused to the inmate’s advances, who had previously stalked and teased her. On Monday, the High Court denied Vijay Saini’s appeal, noting that the evidence of witnesses and the convict’s mobile position at the scene of the crime proved his actions as he fled to Mumbai after committing the crime.
The division bench which was comprised of justice Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal said, “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 judgment of conviction and order on sentence by the Trial Court,” the bench said in judgement passed on October 31.
The bench observed, “Even though there were no direct eye witnesses at the point of shooting the deceased, the testimonies of Narbahadur and Ajit Singh were consistent in that both had heard a sound of a fire shot 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 bench noted that since both had identified the appellant in front of the police and later in court and were unrelated witnesses, they had no basis or reason to falsely accuse the appellant.
The court ruled that the appellant’s motivation for killing the deceased is also clear from the testimony of Pankaj and Ravi, who claimed that the appellant was present in their village, where the deceased resided, 2-3 years ago. They intervened and beat the appellant up because the deceased had complained that he was stalking and tease her.
Both have testified that they took the appellant to the deceased’s home, where the deceased’s father also beat him up. This was confirmed by the testimony of the deceased’s father as well.
The bench observed, “The presence of the appellant in the area of the deceased’s residence and at the place of incident is further corroborated by the CDR record. An analysis of the CDR for mobile of the appellant reveals that between 22nd December, 2010 and 2nd March, 2011 the location of the call phone of the appellant can be traced to Naraina village near the residence of the deceased on multiple occasions.”
The appellant’s cell phone was discovered close to the deceased student’s college at Satya Niketan on December 20 and 29, 2010, as well as on February 20, 2011, the bench observed.
“The said circumstance of absconding immediately after the incident of murder would be admissible as “relevant conduct” under Section 8 of the Evidence Act,” the bench observed.
