Shree Jogdhankar and Jhanvi Kukreja (File Photo)

MUMBAI: A sessions court on Saturday convicted and sentenced Shree Jogdhankar to life imprisonment in the 2021 murder case of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja, more than five years after the incident occurred on New Year’s Eve. Co-accused Diya Padalkar was acquitted. Jogdhankar and Padalkar, both in their 20s, had faced murder charges. Jhanvi and Padalkar were childhood friends and neighbours. “The mother of the deceased does not seek vengeance, but as the victim she seeks dignity, closure, and the assurance that her child’s life mattered in the eyes of the law and in the hope to ensure that justice is done. The murder of Jhanvi Kukreja was perpetrated in a brutal, heinous and barbaric manner inflicting ruthless violence upon her to take her life,” the victim’s mother Niddhi Kukreja’s advocate Trivankumar Karnani submitted in court. Special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat submitted that the incident took place during a year-ending party held on the terrace of Bhagwati Heights in Khar. According to the prosecution’s submissions, Jhanvi was found dead in a pool of blood near the building’s staircase around 2.30am on Jan 1, 2021. Jhanvi, a psychology student, lived in Santacruz. Padalkar (23) and Jogdhankar (26) were arrested for allegedly assaulting Jhanvi on the staircase and murdering her after attending the party at the Khar building. It was alleged that Jhanvi was dragged down the stairs from the fifth floor after a fight allegedly broke out among them over Jogdhankar’s intimacy with Padalkar. Jhanvi’s final post-mortem examination report stated that she had suffered 48 injuries. Padalkar, who was Jhanvi’s neighbour and had known her since childhood, is out on bail, while Jogdhankar remains in jail. They have pleaded not guilty to the murder charge. The prosecution examined 49 witnesses to establish a chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and forensic reports. Gharat argued that Jogdhankar was seen leaving the building in a dazed condition with blood on his torn shirt, while Padalkar allegedly sought medical treatment for a lip injury sustained during the commission of the crime. “The fact that both the accused had come to the party between 00.05 to 00.15 hrs together on a scooter sitting triple seat, however, they did not leave the party together, nor both the accused left together leaving Janhavi back in the party, nor did they show any concern for Janhavi while leaving the party in an attempt to escape from the place. The said facts are all the unchallenged facts,” Gharat submitted. The intervener in the case, Niddhi Kukreja, submitted that her daughter’s murder was perpetrated in a brutal and barbaric manner, with the post-mortem report revealing 48 injuries. The intervener’s submissions pointed to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports confirming the presence of Kukreja’s blood on Jogdhankar’s shirt and on articles used by Padalkar. The prosecution submitted that DNA profiling conclusively established Jogdhankar’s biological presence at the crime scene and Padalkar’s contact with blood-stained articles in the flat where she rested after the incident. In his written submissions, Jogdhankar challenged the prosecution’s case, stating it is based entirely on circumstantial evidence without any eyewitnesses. The defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of evidence as required by law. Jogdhankar’s lawyer Wahab Khan submitted that the injuries he sustained were from a sudden fight that occurred in the heat of the moment.