In a significant verdict, a Mumbai court has handed down a life imprisonment sentence to the renowned artist Chintan Upadhyay for his involvement in the conspiracy to murder his estranged wife, Hema Upadhyay, and her lawyer, Harish Bhambhani. The bodies of Hema and her lawyer were discovered on December 12, 2015.
Presiding Judge SY Bhosale, while pronouncing the sentence, stated, “This is not a rarest of rare case, and therefore, the substantive punishment for the offense, as per Section 120(B) (conspiracy) read with Section 109 (abetment), shall be imprisonment for life.”
The judge took note of the fact that Chintan Upadhyay and the other three accused had no prior criminal records when determining their sentences.
Furthermore, in the case of the three other accused, the court observed, “Their financial condition appears to be very poor, and that appears to be the sole reason they agreed to commit the present offense. It does not appear that the accused have a criminal mentality.”
Despite Chintan’s international acclaim as an artist, the judge speculated that, “It appears that at a particular point in time, to resolve all the problems related to Hema once and for all, a thought may have transformed into a determination to eliminate Hema. This was a result of a specific period he was going through.”
The court concluded that the crime was a result of financial difficulties faced by the three accused.
The judge remarked, “There seems to be less likelihood that they will engage in any future offenses. In other words, the possibility of the reformation of these accused is high.”
Addressing the brutality of the act, the judge emphasized, “Though the accused’s actions were heinous, the case does not qualify as a rarest of rare case warranting the death penalty. Instead, considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the court deems a life sentence as appropriate punishment.”
Prior to reaching this verdict, the judge discussed the potential motive behind the crime, which could have been the delay in the possession of a jointly-owned flat by Chintan and Hema. The possession of the flat was reportedly delayed due to litigation initiated by Hema.
“The flat where the deceased Hema and accused Chintan were residing was jointly owned by them. In the event of Hema’s death, the property would go to Chintan. It is also noted that the petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty was filed by Chintan, and the trial court granted a decree in his favor. However, Hema challenged the said order before the High Court, thus requiring Chintan to wait for the High Court’s decision.”
“These two circumstances are sufficient to infer Chintan’s motive to kill Hema,” Judge Bhosale stated in the order.
The court also clarified that apart from Chintan, the other accused had no apparent reason to harm Hema, which strongly suggests that Chintan was the one with a motive to commit the crime and conspired accordingly.
Regarding the motive behind the murder of Hema’s lawyer, Harish Bhambani, the judge remarked, “As far as the allegation of conspiracy to murder Harish is concerned, there appears to be no satisfactory evidence. However, he was murdered because he accompanied Hema and found himself in a trap set by the accused.