The unethical ways in which most media outlets have reported Hema Upadhyay and Harish Bhambhani murder case, pointing accusing finger at Chintan Upadhyay.
Subhashish Nath‘s post on Facebook asks counter questions to those horrible accusations.
Conjecture # 1. “Fed up with the numerous cases.”
Fact # 1. over ruled a divorce decree. It’s common knowledge that no court can force two people to be in a wedlock if either or both partners have decided to be out of it.
The accused had won both cases in the past. How would he be an aggrieved party in this case?>
Conjecture # 2. “Plotted a conspiracy to lure with ‘clinching evidence’ that would win the alimony appeal in the HC.”
Fact # 2. <What could be ‘clinching evidence’ in an alimony suit? What is an alimony suit? In an alimony suit, a party seeks financial assistance for not being able to sustain himself or herself financially as a result of the divorce. The court deliberates on the joint financial status before divorce and the individual financial statuses after divorce and settles an amount. Marriage Law is not criminal law. Alimony is not a punitive arrangement for breaking away from the wedlock. Nor does an alimony suit fix criminal responsibility on any one. So what could be this ‘clinching evidence’ in such a suit? How would an alleged video of the accused in a compromising position with some women be of any use in such a suit? It would be of help if the deceased was seeking divorce and the accused was not agreeing. It’s a matter of fact that it was the other way round and that the accused already had a divorce decree. So coming back to this ‘clinching evidence’, the deceased’s lawyer was in the middle of it. How could a lawyer be lured for such a meaningless ‘clinching evidence’? The deceased has left behind a nice fortune. Who are the beneficiaries as a result of this death? Certainly not the accused. The would-be beneficiaries were the ones who started singing this ‘clinching evidence’ song a few days after the death. And no one else is aware of these purported telephonic conversations. In a criminal case of unnatural death, the would-be beneficiaries of the fortune left behind are the first ‘prime suspects.’ Has that angle been covered?>
Conjecture # 3. “The accused had ‘meetings/telephonic conversations’ with the ‘prime killer’ who is still at large.”
Fact # 3. <“The ‘prime killer’ is still absconding. Are there any efforts to catch him at all? The accused was not at the purported scene of crime. The ‘prime killer’ was. The latter is yet to be caught. There is no statement from him. It’s a matter of record that he had called a neighbour/lender confessing that he had killed for a specific motive. The neighbour who is autonomous of all concerned has given a statement to investigation. The investigation’s story has no concerns about the ‘prime killer’ now. Because that story and the current story do not go together. Coming back to purported ‘meetings/telephonic conversations’, the ‘prime killer’ was not an unknown entity to the accused. They had a long standing professional relationship in the past. So did the deceased. Any ‘meeting/telephonic conversation’ is not unnatural. So how can that be ‘the evidence’ to frame the accused?>
Fact # 4. <The accused had personal inconvenience when the divorce proceedings started 5 years ago. He has won all the cases since then. He’s well placed now. If he did not consider the extreme step when he was actually suffering inconveniences like imminent arrest because of a false criminal case, why would he consider that step when life had moved on for him? The alleged motive just does not appear to be credible enough.>
Fact # 5. <The three alleged killers and the tempo driver are menial workers. They are being represented by some of the most expensive criminal lawyers. Who is funding them and why? Mean while the ‘prime killer’ is still at large and the police does not appear to be too concerned about him.>
Fact # 6. <The accused was under detention from December 14 to 21. He was interrogated all that while. The arrest of the other four took place on December 15. They were also interrogated. The police story till December 21 was something else. The ‘prime killer’ is yet to be arrested. The police appear to have gone ‘soft’ on him. What is it that happened on December 21 that the police story became completely different from what it was for the previous eight days? If the accused did not ‘confess’ after eight days of sustained interrogation, what made him ‘confess’ within a couple of hours on the 9th day. No material evidence appears to have come to light. Nor is it being told. What is the evidence against the accused?>
Fact # 7. <What has been the role of the media? Does a spicier story suit its purpose? What has happened to crime reporting? The media first spins a ludicrous story without any basis. The police feels pressurised to cover that as the only angle. The police story is then leaked back to the media word by word. That then gets published as a matter of vindication. The Kangaroo Court has delivered. Mean while the principle of natural justice and other fundamental tenets of jurisprudence go and take a walk.>
My prayer is that truth – whatever it is – must prevail.
Leave a Reply