The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, upheld the conviction of Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal, also known as Pathan, for the murder of Pallavi Purkayastha, a female corporate lawyer, in Mumbai's Wadala area in August 2012. The division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale affirmed the life sentence awarded to Sajjad by the sessions court, reinforcing the verdict.

The bench underscored that, "The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety, establishes the guilt of the Appellant (Sajjad) beyond all reasonable doubt. The observations of the Trial Court are compelling and do not warrant any interference. The prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts based on legal, admissible and cogent evidence."

Clarifying the trial court’s decision to impose no fixed term on the life sentence, the judges stated, "This Court, as a Constitutional Court, has the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternative to death penalty. We are of the view that interests of justice will be met in sentencing the convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for life, which will mean imprisonment till the end of his natural life. He will not be entitled to the grant of parole or furlough. We deem this appropriate based on the conduct of the convict who has on previous occasion absconded and was returned to prison after a period of 1 and half year from near the Pakistan border."

The appeals filed by both Sajjad, who sought acquittal, and the State, which demanded a death sentence, were dismissed by the court. Additionally, a revision application by Pallavi’s father, Atanu Purkayastha, seeking the death penalty, was also rejected.

Facts:

The case facts reveal that on August 9, 2012, Sajjad, employed as a watchman in Pallavi’s building, deliberately cut the electricity in her apartment, prompting her to call an electrician whom Sajjad accompanied. Subsequently, he took possession of her flat keys and attempted to sexually assault her, leading to a fatal stabbing during the struggle. After the crime, Sajjad fled but was soon arrested and convicted in 2014.

The court further highlighted Sajjad’s suspicious behavior after conviction, noting that in February 2016, he was granted parole to visit his ailing mother in Kashmir but instead absconded, assuming a false identity and resuming work as a watchman at a different location in Andheri for over a year before being re-arrested. The judges commended the prosecution’s comprehensive presentation of evidence including motive, forensic proof, witness testimonies, and sequence of events that conclusively linked Sajjad to the crime.

Justice Gokhale’s judgment pointed out, "The motive for commission of the offence is established. Sajjad wanted to have sexual relations with Pallavi. The witnesses established as much that Sajjad expressed his desire while in Pallavi's flat itself. Pallavi's neighbour saw Sajjad outside her flat at 01:30 a.m. on the pretext that Avik (her fiancé) had called him, when Sajjad was fully aware that Avik was not at home. Sajjad is the last person seen outside Pallavi's flat with clear intent in entering it. The following morning, Pallavi is found dead; there is a pool of blood in the flat, outside the flat, near the lift. Sajjad is nowhere to be seen when he was supposed to be on duty."

Moreover, Sajjad confessed his involvement to two witnesses while seeking financial assistance to flee. Medical examination revealed injuries consistent with a physical altercation with Pallavi, completing a chain of evidence that left no room for reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

The bench concluded that "In all human probability, the act of murder of the deceased is done by the Sajjad." With these firm observations, the court upheld the life sentence and rejected all appeals in the matter.

Appearance:

For State: Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite, The Special Public prosecutor along with Advocates Priyanka Chavan and Ilsa Shaikh

For Sajjad: Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Gaurav Bhawani, Anush Shetty and Khan Abdul Wahab

For Pallavi’s Father: Advocate Abhishek Yende and Rishikesh Dube

Case Details: The State of Maharashtra vs Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal,

Criminal Appeal No. 678/2014