The court modifies the sentence to life imprisonment without parole, reaffirming the conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal, also known as Sajjad Pathan, in the high-profile murder case of Pallavi Purkayastha, a young advocate. The court modified the trial court's sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for life, affirming that Sajjad will spend the remainder of his natural life in prison without the possibility of parole or furlough. This decision comes after a detailed examination of the circumstantial evidence, which the court found to be conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt.
The case, which has garnered substantial public attention, involved the brutal murder of Pallavi Purkayastha, who was found dead in her apartment in August 2012. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimonies, and the recovery of incriminating articles. The court noted that Sajjad's motive was of a sexual nature, supported by witness testimonies and the disarray found in the victim's bedroom.
The High Court bench, consisting of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, emphasized the five golden principles laid down in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which must be satisfied for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that the chain of evidence was complete, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with Sajjad’s innocence.
The court addressed various defenses raised by Sajjad's counsel, including the alleged failure to prove motive, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the absence of CCTV footage. However, the bench found these arguments insufficient to overturn the conviction, highlighting the consistency and reliability of the evidence presented.
The decision also addressed the procedural aspect of sentencing, correcting the trial court's imposition of life imprisonment for the remainder of Sajjad’s natural life. The High Court, exercising its powers as a Constitutional Court, imposed a modified sentence, ensuring that Sajjad remains incarcerated for life without parole, citing his previous conduct of absconding as justification for denying parole or furlough.
The judgment reaffirms the legal standards for circumstantial evidence and underscores the judiciary's commitment to delivering justice while adhering to due process. The court's ruling is seen as a significant step in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that heinous crimes are met with appropriate legal consequences.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - The five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra must be satisfied - The chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 354, 449
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135
