My conscience is clear, have not committed any crime: Artist Chintan Upadhyay

Artist Chintan Upadhyay who was convicted for the double murder of his estranged wife Hema and her lawyer Haresh Bhambhani told a court here on Saturday that his conscience was clear and he has not committed any crimeUpadhyay however said that he was not seeking mercy and is ready to accept whatever punishment the court decides as it has found him guiltyThe court is expected to decide on the quantum of punishment in the case on October 10Installation artist Hema Upadhyay and her lawyer Bhambhani were killed on December 11 2015 and their bodies were stuffed into cardboard boxes and thrown in a ditch in suburban KandivaliAdditional sessions judge S Y Bhosale of the Dindoshi court had on October 5 held Upadhay guilty of abetting and conspiring to kill his wifeUpadhyay was found guilty under IPC sections 120B criminal conspiracy and 109 abetment Following the conviction the artist who was out on bail was sent to judicial custody till SaturdayThe three coaccused found guilty in the double murder case were tempo driver Vijay Rajbhar and helpers Pradeep Rajbhar and Shivkumar Rajbhar who worked with absconding accused art fabricator Vidyadhar RajbharThe court on Saturday heard the arguments of the prosecution and defence on sentencingBefore the proceedings the court directed all the convicts to stand in the witness box and explained to them the sections under which they were convictedThe judge later asked the convicts if they had anything to say on the judgmentUpadhyay told the court My conscience is clear I have not committed any offence Im innocentHowever the court has found me guilty no mercy should be shown Im ready to accept whatever punishment the court decides he addedVijay Rajbhar informed the court that he has three children and since his fatherinlaws death there was no one to look after them and they were facing issues with school admissionsCoaccused Pradeep Rajbhar said his parents are old and unable to earn a livelihood and his family was dependent on himI was 18 at the time of the arrest young offender and some consideration should be given while deciding the punishment another convict Shivkumar Rajbhar saidThe trio prayed for leniency and sought that the period undergone in prison be set off against the sentenceWhile making his submission on the point of sentencing special public prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade sought a death sentence for the accusedOn Upadhyays statement the lawyer said the stand taken by the accused shows his determination in committing the crime concernedAll the accused were voluntarily involved in the crime he said adding that the crime had shaken the conscience of the society and it was the talk of the townConsidering the attack on a lawyer who is a vital pillar of the society A message has to be given that if pillars are shaken it will be taken seriously he saidThis was a coldblooded and calculated murder and the death penalty should be given Bagade saidIf the accused accept their mistake and show remorse there is scope for reformation These are hardcore criminals there is no scope for reformation he saidAppearing for Upadhyay Raja Thakkare said the philosophy of the death penalty has undergone changes which is reflected in the recent judgment of the Supreme CourtUpadhyay has been found guilty on the charge of IPC section 120B criminal conspiracy which in other words means that he didnt participate in the murder and in whatever manner it was committed will not be relevant to him the senior advocate saidIn any manner it is not a rarest of rare case and a death penalty will not be attracted other alternatives are available Thakare saidAdvocates Rajendra Mishra Anil Jadhav and Vijay Yadav who appeared for the other accused said there was no criminal antecedent and hence a death sentence cant be givenUpadhyay spent nearly six years in jail before being granted bail by the Supreme Court in September 2021 He was sent to judicial custody again after his conviction in the caseThe police were unable to crack the double murder and hence implicated him in a false case taking advantage of his and Hemas matrimonial dispute Upadhyay had claimed in this final statement submitted to the court