Jyoti Shyamdasani murder case | Allahabad High Court upholds conviction of 5 people, including husband, and acquits her alleged lover

However, the court acquitted the sixth accused, the alleged lover of the deceased’s husband, who was accused of participating in the entire criminal conspiracy.

Bench with Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi upheld the trial court’s findings, based on extensive circumstantial evidence and testimony, that A-1/Piyush Shyamdasani (husband of the deceased)he and his co-conspirators (4 in number) arranged the murder of his wife in a calculated manner and then left her in a secluded place to avoid punishment.

The Court also observed that also on the basis of scientific evidence, the prosecution was able to prove that four of the five accused (A-3 to A-6) were actively involved in the commission of the crime of murder of Jyoti in conspiracy with accused A-1.

On the other hand, acquittal A-2 (Manisha Makheeja)alleged mistress of A-1 (deceased’s husband), the Court observed that there was no clear evidence linking her with the conspiracy to murder.

The Tribunal added that, according to the prosecutor’s testimony, the conversation recordings only showed A-2’s contact with A-1, and not with the other accused, and her relationship with A-1 did not clearly prove a conspiracy. Thus, she was acquitted.

The case in brief

According to the FIR lodged by A-1, the incident took place on the night of July 27, 2014, when A-1 and his wife Jyoti visited the restaurant. After leaving the restaurant and returning home, their car was most likely attacked by attackers on motorcycles.

In the FIR, A-1 alleged that the assailants pushed him out of the car and abducted his wife. Her body was later discovered. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that there was a conspiracy at the heart of the incident and that A-1 had arranged the murder of his wife through contract killers (Renu @Akhilesh Kanaujiya, Sonu Kashyap, Ashish Kashyap and Awadesh Chaturvedi).

After the trial court convicted them of the crime of murder.

The High Court in its 105-page judgment noted that the trial court had rightly recorded the finding that it was unnatural for the husband not to protest when unknown assailants tried to abduct his wife by forcing her out of the car.

“…instead of driving away in his car or showing protest, he practically gave up in front of the said people. His own version that he was hit in the hand with some pointy weapon is not supported by any medical evidence” – the Court noted.

Importantly, the Court noted that the record also shows that accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6 were in constant conversation with each other.

Further, so far as the role of A-3 to A-6 is concerned, the Court observed that the statements of these accused persons contained details of the disposal of the knife, handkerchief and jewelry of the victim and the said items were later recovered from their court which found them testimony considered admissible in accordance with Art. 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court also took into account that the FSL report confirmed that the bloodstains on the recovered knife corresponded to the victim’s blood, which further confirmed the recovery made on the basis of the defendant’s disclosure statement.

However, with regard to A-2’s role in the criminal conspiracy of A-1 and A-3 to A-6, the Court observed that although there was evidence that she knew accused A-1 well, there was no such finding of evidence to establish her guilt in criminal conspiracy with accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6.

Therefore, although the convictions of accused A-1 and A3 to A-6 were upheld, the conviction of A-2 was set aside and she was acquitted of the charges.

Performances

Senior advocates GS Chaturvedi and VP Srivastava appeared for the appellants and senior advocate Vinay Saran, assisted by advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra, appeared for the informant in all the related appeals and in the AGA on behalf of the state.