Accused
Deepa Singhania (née Deepa Kapoor), W/o Late Harish Mohan Singhania, Age 54, R/o 14 Singhania House, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Arrested 29 March 2025.
Charges Proposed
| Section | Offence |
|---|
| IPC Section 302 | Murder — premeditated, first-degree |
| IPC Section 120B | Criminal conspiracy (with unknown co-conspirator "VC") |
| HMCA / Special Act | Illegal acquisition and possession of hazardous substance (thallium acetate) via fraudulent entity |
Summary of Evidence Chain
| Element | Evidence | Status |
|---|
| Motive — Dubai family / divorce | E08 (UAE marriage cert.), E13 (divorce petition) | Established ✓ |
| Motive — will amendment / succession | E04 (will), E13 (petition para 3) | Established ✓ |
| Planning — shell company creation | E14 (JMRF registry) | Established ✓ |
| Means — thallium acquisition | E09 (CPCB record), E12 (bank transfer), E14 (JMRF) | Established ✓ |
| Opportunity — suite entry | E10 (key card log), E16 (CCTV Camera 2B) | Established ✓ |
| Self-incrimination | E15 (WhatsApp — "the solution to everything"; confirmation of delivery; thread deletion) | Established ✓ |
| Victim unaware | E17 (final message — "the wine is very good") | Confirmed ✓ |
| Co-conspirator "VC" | E15 (partial recovery) | Ongoing — immaterial to charge |
DSP Verma's Assessment
The evidence against Deepa Singhania is, in the SIT's assessment, comprehensive. The case proceeds on the basis of premeditation established by the five-week timeline between procurement and execution; physical access established by key card and CCTV; financial linkage established by the bank transfer to the shell entity on the day of purchase; and digital evidence from the accused's own device. She has made no statement since her arrest. The co-conspirator "VC" remains unidentified. Based on message content, VC had specialist chemical knowledge and likely served as an anonymous technical advisor — possibly sourced through unmonitored channels. VC gave Deepa the procedural knowledge she needed but had no direct involvement in the act. The case against the primary accused is not dependent on resolving the VC identity, and the SIT has assessed further VC investigation as a separate matter.