Had no role in conspiracy to kill Hema Upadhyay and her lawyer, says Chintan

Artist Chintan Upadhyay denies involvement in the murder of his estranged wife and her lawyer, claiming lack of evidence against him.

Artist Chintan Upadhyay on Wednesday told the Dindoshi sessions court that he had nothing to do with the conspiracy to kill his estranged wife Hema Upadhyay, also an artist, and her lawyer Haresh Bhambhani.

Chintan Upadhyay - Art exhibition Dis Location at Colaba - HT Photo by Sambit Saha 12-11-10

“The prosecution had no legally admissible evidence against Chintan and that is why police pressured accused Pradeep Rajbhar to give a confession three months after his arrest,” Chintan’s counsel Raja Thakare said in his final arguments.

Thakare also claimed that from the evidence gathered by the police the murders did not appear to be pre-planned but might have happened on the spur of the moment.

Rajbhar was arrested on December 15, 2015, and on March 1, 2016, he wrote a letter from the prison to the court that he wanted to confess and accordingly gave a confession. On June 27, 2016, Rajbhar retracted his statement.

“By March, the prosecution realised that they did not have any legally admissible evidence against Chintan and hence Pradeep was pressured to give a confession. He became a soft target. Besides, the letter that he wrote to the court, showing his willingness to confess was not on paper which in ordinary course is supplied to the inmates,” Thakare argued.

According to the prosecution, Vidyadhar hired other accused, lured the victims to Chintan’s workshop in Kandivali on December 11, 2015, and smothered the two there. The bodies were later packed in wooden boxes and dumped in a nullah, which were found by a rag picker the next day. The rag picker alerted the police.

Thakare contended that the prosecution case was divided into three parts – conspiracy and execution of murder and disposal of the bodies. “According to the prosecution, the bodies were disposed of in wooden boxes, and they were dumped at different places. So, if we see the evidence, murders had not occurred where the empty boxes were kept - at a warehouse. This shows that the murders were not pre-planned but occurred on the spur of the moment.”

He added that first, the alleged killers were to meet the victims at Malad and later the place of the meeting was changed to Kandivali, but Chintan had no idea of this change, and this showed that he had played no role in this conspiracy.

The prosecution also claimed that the person who was to execute the murders was Vidhyadhar who had known all the facts and details. As per Pradeep’s confession, the prosecution said, Pradeep called Hema pretending to be Chintan’s servant from Jaipur and offered her information against Chintan to use it in her divorce case. This was a ploy to convince her to meet the accused, the prosecution added.

“In ideal circumstances, the money should be paid to Vidhyadhar. Where is the question of Chintan offering ₹20 lakh to Pradeep whose primary role was to just make a phone call to Hema and to bring her to a particular spot,” Thakare said, adding that the accused used to work for Hema also and as a natural precaution Chintan wouldn’t take the risk to employ such people, as there were chances of them revealing the plans to her.