Order convicting Kirti’s ‘killers’ claims they failed to prove innocence

The sessions court while granting life imprisonment to Siddhesh Tamhankar and Khushi Sahjwani in connection with the murder of Kirti Vyas finance manager at BBlunt salon considered several key pieces of evidence The court noted the bloodstains found inside Sahjwanirsquos car which matched the DNA samples of Vyasrsquos parents Additionally the court thoroughly examined CCTV footage from March 16 2018 which confirmed that both accused picked up Vyas from her Grant Road residence This footage contradicted the accusedrsquos claim that they dropped her off between Grant Road and Mumbai Central from where she supposedly boarded a train at Grant Road station The court detailed these findings in its 115page order granting life imprisonment to both accusedKirti Vyas the finance manager of the salon chain who was killed by Siddhesh and Khushi SahjwaniFoundational factsJudge Deshpandersquos order noted that both accused took Kirti in their car on March 16 2018 but never dropped her off anywhere leading to her disappearance The court clarified that the prosecution need not prove how Vyas was killed or where as this information is known only to the accused ldquoOn the contrary it is for both accused to explain with cogent circumstances what happened to Vyas when their theory that they dropped her somewhere between Grant Road and Mumbai Central railway stations or at Reliance Mall is not supported by any evidence or cogent explanationrdquo the bench observedLack of evidenceBoth accused told midday on Tuesday that they had dropped Vyas near Grant Road railway station and she boarded a train from there However no evidence was found to support their claim ldquoThe true rule is that when accused do not provide any explanation for facts that are especially within their knowledge and could support a theory compatible with their innocence the court can consider their failure to provide an explanation as an additional link that completes the chain of evidence When it is impossible for the prosecution to provide wholly convincing evidence on certain issues within the knowledge of the accused it is the responsibility of the accused to present evidence on those issues if they wish to escape conviction Nothing of the sort has occurred in this caserdquo the court order readThe accused have also claimed that the CCTV footage was manipulated like the forensic report of the bloodstains found in the case To this the court said ldquoIt is argued that certain materials such as the CDRs collected during the enquiry were not produced and therefore an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution However nothing prevented the accused from presenting evidence in their defence by calling for the original CDRs soft copies hard copies and CCTV footage they have challenged They did not petition the court for this evidence nor presented any in their defence Additionally it is argued that Khushirsquos car was washed multiple times so there was no likelihood of any blood traces remaining In this situation nothing prevented accused no 2 Sahjwani from calling the car washer as a witness to tender evidence in her defencerdquoCar locationldquoThe prosecution has successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Vyas was in the company of both accused in Sahjwanirsquos carrdquo stated the court ldquoHer mysterious disappearance from the car is also proved beyond reasonable doubt Hence only the accused know what happened with Vyas inside their car and the nonavailability of corpus delicti will not affect the merits of the caserdquo The court highlighted the absence of satisfactory explanations from both accused regarding the presence of their car in various CCTV footage locations on the morning of March 16 2018 It further noted the lack of justification for the carrsquos sightings at specific locations during late hours corroborated by call detail records and tower locations of the accusedrsquos mobile numbersPossible motiveIn its order the court stated ldquoThere is substantive evidence to prove that the last date for the termination of Tamhankarrsquos employment was March 16 2018 and the notice to that effect is the best primary evidencersquo Witness Varsha Khanolkar admin head and alternate director of BBlunt testified about the companyrsquos initiation of interviews to replace Tamhankar after his terminationrdquo the court order readldquoSatyajeet Thakur director of BBlunt further testified that he had entrusted Vyas with the authority to handle Tamhankarrsquos termination and had approved his dismissal This stigmatic termination would have closed the doors to future prospects for himrdquo the order continued Tamhankar however disputed this telling midday on Tuesday that Vyas didnrsquot have the authority to terminate him as his reporting manager was someone elseFraud angleThe order further states ldquoMoreover the crucial reason was his fear and anxiety about being separated from Sahjwanirsquo Khanolkar also mentioned in her evidence the bogus receipts issued by Sahjwani to students using a fake receipt book when BBlunt had never prescribed any fees or issued any receipt book This clearly proves that Sahjwani collected substantial money from the students of BBlunt Academy but did not deposit it in BBluntrsquos account instead keeping it for reasons known only to her She Sahjwani was under the dread of divulgence of her fraud being exposed and Vyas as the finance manager was responsible for overseeing all financial aspects This provides the motive for the mysterious disappearance of VyasrdquoThe court concluded that all offences had been proved beyond reasonable doubt lsquoIt is not a straightjacket formula that the case based on circumstantial evidence is a weak case for conviction and it can never be proved beyond reasonable doubt I have given detailed reasons regarding my view before holding both accused guilty for the offences proved against themrsquo the order readlsquoVyasrsquos kin have sufferedrsquoDeshpandersquos order emphasises ldquoIt is a fact that her parents are old and she has an unemployed sister All of them were dependent on Vyasrsquos earnings As such she was the financial pillar of her family and ever since her disappearance her family have faced difficulty and misery that cannot be explained in words Even if both accused were directed to pay her compensation that would not suffice The family background of both accused is such that they cannot pay any compensation to Vyasrsquos family Tamhankar has been in jail since his arrest and hence has no independent source of income to pay a fine or compensationrdquo