Chintan Upadhyay conviction: Sketches not considered, court relied on confession, calls, Alvida Alvida song posted day before murder

The court also held that the song “Alvida Alvida” posted by Chintan on his Facebook account a day before the murders was not direct evidence but may be considered as his “conduct”.

The court on Tuesday sentenced Chintan to life imprisonment for abetting and conspiring the murder of artist Hema on December 11, 2015.

Three others — Vijay Rajbhar, Pradeep Rajbhar and Shivkumar Rajbhar — were also sentenced to life imprisonment for committing the murders of Hema and her lawyer, Harish Bhambhani.

At the time of the murders, Chintan was in Delhi.

Ten days later, the Kandivali police arrested him claiming his involvement in the two murders, observing that it was caused by the matrimonial dispute going on between Chintan and Hema.

The police relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Among the evidence that the police presented before the court against Chintan, was sketches drawn by him, seized from his house in Delhi. These included four sketches on canvas and 74 other sketches and four diaries.

Additional sessions judge Shrikant Y Bhosale said that he had carefully gone through the sketches. “The accused no. 4 Chintan is admittedly renowned artist and has a mastery over drawing such sketches. Thus, possessing such sketches by accused Chintan is not unnatural or it cannot be said that he drew the said sketches only to express his mental state. Further the prosecution has not examined any expert evidence who can help the Court to suggest the meaning of the sketches,” the court said.

It reproduced at least ten sketches made by Chintan in its 214-page judgment passed on Tuesday.

Another evidence the police had submitted through special public prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade was that Chintan had uploaded the Hindi song “Alvida Alvida” (Goodbye) on his Facebook account, a day before the murders.

Defence lawyers Raja Thakare and Bharat Manghani, representing Chintan, had said that this was not sufficient to infer his involvement. The court said that while it was not a direct evidence, it may be considered as one to ascertain the “conduct” of Chintan.

The court also refused to consider a sketch referred to by one of the witnesses, Poonam Bhambhani, the wife of the lawyer. She had told the court that Hema had shown her a photograph of a sketch made by Chintan which said, “I will destroy you.”

The prosecution, however, was unable to produce the sketch, hence it cannot be accepted, the court said. One of the evidence held against Chintan was that he had called Bhambhani’s daughter and Hema’s help to inquire about her, a day after the murder.

While he claimed that it was natural for him to call since she had gone missing, the court said that since the relationship between the couple was strained, his conduct was to be considered in light of those circumstances.

One of the main pieces of evidence the court relied on was the confession by co-accused Pradeep. While the defence had claimed that the confession was taken under pressure and retracted, the court held that it is voluntary and reliable.

The confession spoke about Chintan’s role in conspiring for the murders with absconding accused Vidyadhar. The court said that the confession was corroborated through independent witnesses, including on the point of a meeting held in Chembur where Chintan had met Vidyadhar, Vijay and Pradeep Rajbhar. The court, however, did not consider an extra judicial confession given by Vidyadhar to his mother on the phone after the murder.