Motive Was To Commit Murder: Allahabad HC Confirms Conviction Of Piyush Shyamdasani & 4 Others In His Wife’s Murder Case; Acquits Alleged Girlfriend

The appeal before the High Court was filed challenging the judgment of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants-accused persons.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan & Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi said, “The number and nature of injuries caused on the body of the victim clearly shows that the assailants were made sure that the victim did not survive the injuries and therefore, the prosecution has proved that the death of deceased Jyoti Shyamdasani was of homicidal in nature and she was murdered.”

Senior Advocate Aditya Prakash Singh represented the Appellants while G.A.Pradeep Kumar represented the Respondent-State.

The informant had filed a written complaint stating that while he was returning with his wife, on the way, 7-8 persons on four motorcycles waylaid his Honda Accord Car by hitting it from the front side and they forcibly took him out by causing injury on his hand. One of the assailants drove the car and three other persons sat in the car and abducted his wife. The police came in action and on the basis of the mobile phone location of victim- Jyoti, wife of the informant, reached the place, where she was found in a critically injured condition inside a Honda Accord Car. She was taken to hospital and on the way she succumbed to the injuries and was declared brought dead.

During investigation, the police found that there was sufficient evidence against Piyush Shyamdasani, who is the husband of the victim, therefore, arrested him and thereafter, based on his disclosure statement four other accused persons were arrested. Later on, the police found evidence worthy of arrest against accused- Manisha Makheeja and she was also arrested. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was presented and the trial court framed the charges against all the accused persons under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 404, 34, 203, 202 I.P.C and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

After hearing the arguments, the Bench found no merit in the appeals filed by accused-A-1, Piyush Shyamdasani, A-3- Awadhesh Chaturvedi, A-4- Renu @ Akhilesh Kanaujiya, A-5- Sonu Kashyap and A6- Ashish Kashyap. The Bench observed that the trial court has rightly recorded the finding that it is unnatural for a husband not to protest when some unknown assailants were trying to abduct his wife, by forcing him out of the car and 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 was not proved by any medical evidence.

The Bench further mentioned that all the witnesses of fact i.e. relatives of the deceased- her uncle, brother, mother, father and aunt clearly stated that immediately after the marriage, Jyoti was complaining about the unresponsive and cruel behaviour of her husband-accused A-1 and their testimony could not be shattered despite lengthy cross-examination.

A perusal of the post-mortem report reflected that the deceased suffered as many as 14 incised wound injuries as she tried to save her life. The manner in which the injuries were caused to the victim, also suggested that it was not a case of abduction and motive was to commit murder. From the prosecution evidence, it was proved that the motive to commit the offence was not dacoity as there was no evidence of looting the money or personal belongins as nothing was taken away from Piyush Shyamdasani. There was no motive of committing rape or ravishing the victim as it has come on record, in the post-mortem report that there is no evidence of molestation or rape with the victim. Even the motive given in the FIR by accused- A-1 that his wife was kidnapped, was not proved that as in such eventuality the assailants would not have killed the victim and they may have demanded ransom at a subsequent stage.

The entries in the diary of the deceased also suggested that she was not happy with the marriage. As per the Bench, the defence counsels, could not rebut in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses regarding the causing of injuries to the victim, the post-mortem report and the nature of weapon used, therefore, the trial court has rightly recorded the finding that the deceased died due to the ante-mortem injuries on her body. The paternal aunt of the victim stated that at the relevant time when the victim was present in the Varnada Restaurant, she received a call from victim who told her that she was very tensed, she also told that Piyush had gone downstairs of restaurant while talking on the phone and he was telling someone that the work will be done today. Therefore, the victim was having a strange feeling of fear, proving that there was a conspiracy between Piyush and other accused persons, A-3 to A-6. Taking note of the call details and phone numbers of the accused persons, the Bench said, “Thus, all these facts prove that accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6 were in continuous conversation with each other.”

The Bench thus held that accused A-1 and A-3 to A-6 in criminal conspiracy, had caused murder of deceased Pooja @ Jyoti in a car and left her in a secluded place with intention of escaping the punishment and accused A-3 to A-6 conceal the jewellery in possession of the deceased at the time of death to destroy the evidence. It was further noticed that the call details record of all the phones which were used by the accused were proved by the statement of the Nodal Officers of the respective mobile companies who had duly proved the certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act by stating that there was no tampering with the computers where the data is stored and no one could have access to the same unless he was so authorized. Therefore, in the light of the judgment in Shafi Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801, the requirement of Section 65-B of Evidence Act was proved and the certificates were duly proved to show that these accused were guilty.

It was alleged that the victim's husband was having affair with a girl named Manisha who belongs to a family, doing business of making Gutkha and is residing in their neighbourhood. Though as per the prosecution evidence, the call details of accused Manisha Makheeja with the accused A-1 showed that they used to talk to each other, however, there were no call details of her mobile number with other accused persons A-3 to A-6. Clarifying that the involvement of A-2-Manisha Makheeja(his alleged lover) in criminal conspiracy with A-1, A-3 to A-6 was not proved, the Bench said, “...the mere suspicion raised by PW-5 & PW-6 about the role of A-2 is not sufficient to uphold her conviction specially when they never rose to a situation which was very alarming because as per Jyoti, A1 and A-2 were conspiring to eliminate her.” The prosecution had failed to prove the chain of circumstances which proved that the Manisha had any knowledge of intention of other accused persons.

Thus, the Bench held that the prosecution was able to prove the complete chain of evidence against A-1- Piyush Shyamdasani and A-3- Awadhesh Chaturvedi, A-4- Renu @ Akhilesh Kanaujiya, A-5- Sonu Kashyap and A-6- Ashish Kashyap. Upholding their conviction and dismissing their appeal, the Bench, however, allowed the criminal appeal of Manisha Makheeja and acquitted her of the charge.

Cause Title: Piyush Shyamdasani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:187614-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Aditya Prakash Singh, Advocates Neeraj Joshi, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Sharique Ahmed,Sushil Shukla

Respondents: Senior Advocate Deepankar Shukla, G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Raghuvansh Misra,Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Saurabh Chaturvedi,Tanzeel Ahmad

Click here to read/download Order