The court affirmed the appellant's conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and established motive, highlighting the premeditated nature of the crime.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This appeal assails the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 31st October, 2017 convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, Sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27(1) Arms Act and order on sentence dated 7th November, 2017 awarding the sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/-, rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 25 (1B) (a) Arms Act and fine of Rs. 1000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 27 (1) Arms Act and fine of Rs. 1000/-, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine. All sentences to run concurrently.

The impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court had also convicted two other co-accused Tabrez Ahmed @ Sameer and Ashraf Ali @ Fuddey for offence punishable under Section 212/34 IPC and Sheikh Shekhu for offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) Arms Act and the sentence awarded to them was for the period already undergone by them respectively and the fine of Rs. 1000/- each was deposited by them since they did not wish to challenge their conviction and sentence.

The Incident

2. As per the case of the prosecution, information was received by PCR on 8th March, 2011 at about 10:20 a.m. by PW-9 Ajit Singh that a girl had been shot at Dhaula Kuan foot over-bridge, Satya Niketan. This was shared with PS Dhaula Kuan vide DD No. 19-A recorded at 10:25 a.m. PW-47 Inspector Bal Ram (IO) along with other police officials reached the spot and found that one unidentified girl had been shifted to the hospital but could not survive. At the hospital, the complainant Rajender Singh PW-1 had also reached and identified the deceased as his daughter Radhika Tanwar. FIR No.49/2011 was registered on the statement of the complainant who mentioned that his daughter Radhika had left house for her college at about 9:30 a.m. and at about 11:00 a.m. he had received a call on his mobile phone that someone had shot his daughter at Satya Niketan. Upon reaching the hospital pursuant to information received, he found that his daughter had already expired. During the investigation, it was found that the assailant had fired one bullet at the back of the deceased resulting in her death and that the appellant Vijay Saini used to follow the deceased few years prior to the incident. Later it was found that the appellant had fled to Mumbai and his associates, the co-accused with whom he had stayed in the night after the date of the incident had fled to their native place at District Sitapur, UP. The appellant and the co-accused were arrested from respective places and brought to Delhi and later the fourth co-accused Sheikh Shekhu was arrested from his house who got recovered the firearm used by appellant Vijay Saini.

3. Consequently, all four accused were charge sheeted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Section 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act were framed against the appellant; charge under Section 201/34 IPC against the accused Tabrez and Ashraf Ali; and charges under Section 212/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act against accused Sheikh Shekhu. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 50 witnesses, statements of the appellant and other co-accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and they did not lead any evidence in defence.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

4. The appellant through his appeal and arguments on his behalf led by learned counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution was unable to establish guilt beyond reasonable do