The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the life sentence and conviction of a man who shot dead DU student Radhika Tanwar in Dhaulakuan, South Delhi, in 2011.

Tanwar, who was 20 years old at the time, was shot dead on March 8, 2011, on a footbridge in Sathya Niketan district, South Delhi. The deceased was a resident of Naraina village, Ramlal, who was in his second year of completing his bachelor’s degree at Anand University. During the investigation, it was discovered that Tanwar had been shot in the back by Vijay Saini, who “had been following the deceased for years prior to the incident”. I have appealed the court’s decision conviction of the crimes committed under IPC Section 302 (Homicide) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. He was also appealing the November 7, 2017 sentencing, which sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 for murder.

A split court between Judges Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal found that the prosecution was able to prove the Applicant’s (Saini’s) guilt beyond reasonable doubt, stating that the death of the deceased was due to “firearm damage.”

In its page 26 injunction, the HC stated that there were “no direct witnesses to the shooting.” But two eyewitness accounts were consistent, noting that both heard gunshots and saw the girl descend. transfer lamp. And some saw the boy standing next to him hiding something under his shirt, and others saw him running away with a gun in his hand.

HC said that both witnesses had identified Saini both to the police and to the court of first instance, “because the independent and disinterested witness had no reason or reason to implicate him wrongly.”

HC believed that the motive for killing the deceased emerged from the testimony of a village man who said that Saini had been caught in the village a few years earlier and had intervened and beat him when Tanwar pointed it out. . He was stalking her and making fun of her.

HC dismissed Saini’s appeal, ruling: Therefore, the court does not find error in the appeal of the conviction and the trial court’s judgment order. ”