The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a security guard, a native of Jammu and Kashmir, for the murder of 25-year-old corporate lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha at her Wadala apartment in 2012. However, the Supreme Court rejected pleas by the Maharashtra government and Purkayastha’s father, seeking to enhance the sentence to death penalty for Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mughal alias Sajjad Pathan.
According to police, on the night of August 8, 2012, Pathan deliberately cut off the power supply to Pallavi Purkayastha’s apartment sometime before the murder, after which she had to call electricians to restore it, allowing him to enter her home and kill her.
On August 10 that year – the evening after Purkayastha’s body was found – police arrested Pathan at Mumbai Central station, before he boarded a train to Surat and then fled to his native place.
In July 2014, a court convicted him of murder, assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and trespassing into her home in order to commit an offense punishable by death under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The state government and Purkayastha’s father approached the Supreme Court, seeking death penalty for Pathan, while the convict challenged the sessions court order.
Mumbai Police launched a 19-month manhunt to nab the convict after he jumped parole
In January 2016, Pathan was granted a month’s parole to meet his ailing mother. He never returned and kept changing his location frequently, moving between Mumbai and Kashmir. Mumbai Police narrowed down his location through a Facebook post he made with his brother, which was linked to his old mobile number that revealed his location near Uri in Jammu and Kashmir, a town close to the Line of Control (LoC).
However, he moved to his village Salamabad, which was closer to the Pakistani border and stayed there by changing his appearance and working as a labourer. However, poor wages prompted him to move to Delhi and later to Mumbai as a security guard in a building under construction. When one of his friends informed the police, he returned to Kashmir via Delhi.
The police did not arrest him immediately because he told local residents that he was falsely implicated and gained their sympathy. The police team, which disguised itself as engineers and used local residents as sources, kept a close eye on him. Eventually, they lured him to the Kargil-Sonmarg area for work, where he was arrested on October 10, 2017, and brought back to Mumbai amid difficult security conditions and terrain – nearly 19 months after his disappearance.
Claims before the Bombay High Court
On November 10, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the petitions, nearly 10 years after they were submitted before it.
Story continues below this ad
Lawyer Yog Mohit Chowdhury, representing Pathan, said the case was “purely based on circumstantial evidence”, alleging that the prosecution had failed to gather the best evidence. He stressed the absence of Pathan’s fingerprints and described it as “highly abnormal”. Chaudhary also questioned why the CCTV cameras were not working, even though the community is upscale and well secured, suggesting that it was unlikely that they were not working as the prosecution claimed, undermining the case against Pathan. Chaudhary sought to set aside the court’s order issued at the hearing.
Special Public Prosecutor Manoj Mohite responded to Pathan’s defense allegations and said that DNA analysis confirmed Pathan’s involvement. His DNA was found on the hair at the crime scene, while the knife used in the murder and several other items found carried Pallavi’s DNA. Mohit argued that non-working CCTV cameras did not affect the strength of the case and it was not suspicious at all.
Pallavi’s father, retired IAS officer Atanu Purkayastha – in a review application filed through advocate Abhishek Yendi – sought death sentence for Pathan, arguing that unexplained blood spatter, injuries and confessions proved guilt. He referred to Pathan’s parole jump and was later tracked down near the Pakistan border.
HC findings conclude that Pathan’s guilt was proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
The bench of Justices AJ S Gadkari and Neela K Gokhale in its judgment observed that the motive behind Pathan committing the crime was “sufficiently proven” and the same was “of great importance in proving his guilt”.
Story continues below this ad
Delivering a 79-page judgment to the bench, Justice Gokhale observed, “There is no material on record to suggest that after 1.30 am someone other than Pathan entered Pallavi’s apartment after 1.30 am. Thus, the prosecution’s case against Sajjad has been proven, based on the last theory seen. There is a complete link in the chain of circumstances, which proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” The HC said the police had no motive to falsely implicate Pathan.
The bench also noted that it was not a mistake on the part of the police that the internal CCTV cameras in the housing society were not in working condition and that “there was no purpose in collecting the cameras when there was no footage available”.
“Sajjad is the last person seen outside Pallavi’s apartment and had a clear intention of entering it. The next morning, Pallavi was found dead; there is a pool of blood in the apartment, outside the apartment, near the lift. Sajjad is nowhere to be seen when he was supposed to be on duty. Sajjad called two witnesses and admitted his guilt while seeking financial assistance to return to his native place…” the Humanitarian Coordinator noted.
The court concluded – referring to the chain of evidence and events – that “in all human probabilities, the murder of the deceased was committed by Pathan.”
Story continues below this ad
Imprisonment for the rest of life, without parole or furlough
The Supreme Court highlighted the behavior of the convict “who escaped on previous occasions and was returned to prison after a period of one and a half years near the Pakistani border.”
Therefore, taking a strict stand “in the interest of justice”, the Supreme Court sentenced Pathan to imprisonment until the end of his natural life and made it clear that he “will not be entitled to parole or leave”.
(Tags for translation) Pallavi Purkayastha Murder
