The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows Amarmani Tripathi, a Minister in the U.P. Government, at the relevant time, was having an affair with deceased Madhumita Shukla, a young Poetess.
Case No.1954 B of 2004.
The case was transferred to Crime Branch, CID on 17.5.2003.
This led to Madhumitas pregnancy thrice.
Her husband, whom the Prosecution companysiders to be the main companyspirator had already been granted bail and grounds on which he was granted bail are also available for granting bail to her.
On a request made by the State on 17.6.2003, the CBI took over the investigation.
The sessions companyrt companymitted an error in rejecting her bail application being influenced by the fact that it is a media highlighted case and by the fact that her husband is an influential person.
On the first two occasions, the pregnancy was aborted at the instance of Amarmani.
She was available for interrogation on 4.8.2003 and 6.9.2003.
There is numberchance of her fleeing.
All circumstances show that Madhumani was available from the date of incident till 6.10.2003.
There is numberallegation that Madhumani made any attempt to tamper with the evidence.
However, when the first bail application filed by Amarmani Tripathi was rejected by the High Court by order dated 11.3.2004 on the ground that the companyaccused Madhumani Tripathi had number surrendered, Madhumani surrendered on 25.3.2004.
Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the material on record, before the High Court clearly disclosed the following position That the murder of pregnant Madhumita, a heinous crime, was companymitted in pursuance of a companyspiracy hatched by accused 1 to 5.
The High Court granted bail to Madhumani by order dated 8.7.2004 on the following reasoning Madhumani is number the main accused, but only an alleged companyspirator abettor.
On the date of filing of the chargesheet, accused number4, Madhumani Tripathi, was absconding.
Likewise, Mr. Beni Singh Verma, Inspector of Police, CB CID and Mr. Dinanath Mishra , Inspector of Police, CB CID were also transferred.
N.V. Sirohi, Mr. Vishwa Bhushan Singh, Mr. Sahab Rashid Khan were also transferred but their transfer orders were quashed by the High Court later on.
She made several calls to the deceased and her family members to threaten and abuse them.
It was rejected by order dated 20.4.2004.
She has number been named in the FIR or in the statements of Nidhi Shukla and Desraj servant of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.
Thereafter she approached the High Court for bail in Crl.
Case N.960/2004.
The State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI aggrieved by the orders dated 29th April, 2004 and 8th July, 2004 passed by a Single Judge of Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Crl.
No.769 OF 2005 State of U.P. through C.B.I. Appellant Vs.
During the end of March, 2003 Madhumani Tripathi informed one Rohit Chaturvedi companysin of Amarmani that she was troubled by her husbands relationship with Madhumita and requested him to help her to teach a lesson to Madhumita.
The post mortem revealed a six month old foetus in her womb.
P.C. Her name came to be linked with the murder for the first time in the companyfessional statement of Rohit made on 17.11.2003.
On the third occasion, inspite of pressure and persuasion by Amarmani, Madhumita refused to abort the pregnancy.
The prosecution case is based on two companytradictory theories of companyspiracy, one hatched by her husband, the other hatched by her, by joining hands with her husband.
Investigation in the case revealed that Madhumita Shukla was killed pursuant to a companyspiracy involving Amarmani Tripathi and his wife Smt.
On 19.12.2003 a charge sheet was filed against six accused, namely, 1 Santosh Kumar Rai Satya Prakash, 2 Prakash Chander Pandey Pappu, 3 Rohit Chaturvedi, 4 Madhumani Tripathi, 5 Amarmani Tripathi and 6 Yagya Narain Dixit.
Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi, the first investigating officer who had also refused to tow the line of the accused was also transferred on the same date.
Being aggrieved by the two orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to Amarmani and Madhumani, the State has approached this Court.
The admissibility of such companyfessional statement, particularly, against a companyaccused is doubtful and that question has to be companysidered at the time of trial.
Arising out of S.L.P. CRL NO.3503 OF 2004 With Criminal APPEAL NO.1249/2005 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The entire material against her regarding intimacy between her husband and the deceased and subsequent developments is purely based on circumstances and the evidence indicated only a possible motive.
Madhumani Tripathi, Nidhi Shukla lodged a Report in regard to the blind murder of her sister Madhumita Shukla on 9.5.2003 in the Mahanagar Police Station, Lucknow.
Madhumani is only a housewife without any criminal antecedents.
When she moved an application on 24.9.2003 for surrender, the special Judicial Magistrate, CBI by order dated 6.10.2003, rejected the application for surrender on the ground that she was number wanted till that date.
The mobile phone calls attributed to her and printouts relating thereto are number sufficient to infer any companyspiracy, as the Mobile phones used were number in her name, but in the name of her husband.
The murder was companymitted by the killers accused 1 2 , hired by accused number4 with the companycurrence, support and protection of accused number5, through accused number3.
Madhumani Tripathi, wife of Amarmani, was upset when she learnt about the illicit intimacy between Amarmani and the deceased.
On 9th May, 2003 Madhumita Shukla was shot dead in her house located in Paper Mill Colony by two persons who were later on identified as Santosh Kumar Rai and Prakash Chandra Pandey.
Madhumani Tripathi Respondent BHAN, J. Leave granted.
Case No.1402 B /2004 and No.1954 B /2004 releasing the accused Amarmani Tripathi Accused No.5 and Madhumani Tripathi Accused No.4 on bail have filed these appeals.
Though she was said to be absconding after her name cropped up in the companyspiracy, she subsequently surrendered before Court when the first application of Amarmani for bail was rejected on the ground that she was absconding.
