Jyoti Shyamdasani Murder Case | Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction Of 5 Including Husband, Acquits His Alleged Lover

The Court, however, acquitted the 6th accused, the alleged lover of the deceased's husband, who was accused of being a part of the entire murder conspiracy.

A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi upheld the trial court's findings, which were based on the extensive circumstantial evidence and testimonies, that A-1/Piyush Shyamdasani (Husband of the deceased), along with his co-conspirators (4 in numbers), had orchestrated the murder of his wife in a calculated manner and after that, left her in a secluded place to escape the punishment.

The Court also noted that as per the scientific evidence as well, the prosecution had been able to prove that four of the five accused (A-3 to A-6) actively participated in the commission of the offence of murder of Jyoti in conspiracy with accused A-1.

On the other hand, acquitting A-2 (Manisha Makheeja), the alleged lover of A-1 (husband of the deceased), the Court noted that there was no conclusive evidence linking her to the murder conspiracy.

The Court added that, per the prosecution's evidence, the call records only showed A-2 in contact with A-1, not with the other accused, and her relationship with A-1 did not conclusively prove a conspiracy. Thus, she was acquitted.

The case in brief

According to the FIR filed by A-1, the incident occurred on the night of July 27, 2014, when A-1 and his wife, Jyoti, visited a restaurant. After leaving the restaurant, as they were on their way home, their car was allegedly ambushed by assailants on motorcycles.

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

After the trial court convicted them for the offence of Murder.

The High Court, in its 105-page judgment, observed that the trial court had rightly recorded the finding that it was unnatural for a husband not to protest when some unknown assailants were trying to abduct his wife by forcing him out of the car.

“…instead of speeding away the car or showing any protest, he has virtually surrendered before the said persons. His own version that he was hit by some pointed weapon on his hand, is not proved by any medical evidence,” the Court observed.

Importantly, the Court noted that it had also come on the record that the accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6 were in continuous conversation with each other.

Further, concerning the role of A-3 to A-6, the Court noted that the disclosure statements of these accused contained details about the disposal of the knife, handkerchief, and the victim's jewellery, and the said articles were later on recovered at their instance, which made their statements admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court further factored in that the FSL report confirmed that the bloodstains on the recovered knife matched the victim's blood, and this fact further corroborated the recovery made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused.

However, regarding the role of A-2 in the criminal conspiracy with A-1 and A-3 to A-6, the Court noted that though there was evidence that she was well acquainted with accused A-1, there was no such clinching evidence to hold her guilty of criminal conspiracy with accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6.

Thus, while the conviction of the 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.

Appearances

Senior Advocates G.S. Chaturvedi and V.P. Srivastava appeared for the appellants and Senior Advocate Vinay Saran, assisted by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra, appeared for the informant in all connected appeals and the AGA for the State.