Jhanvi Kukreja murder case: 5 years later, Mumbai court likely to deliver verdict today; all you need to know

MUMBAI: A sessions court is likely to pronounce its judgment today in the 2021 murder case of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja, more than five years after the incident occurred on New Year's Eve.

The case involves two accused, Shree Jogdhankar and Diya Padalkar, both in their 20s, who face 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 lawyer 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 2.30 am 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 on the terrace of 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 said she had suffered 48 injuries.

Padalkar, who was Jhanvi’s neighbour and knew her since childhood, is out on bail, while Jogdhankar is still 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 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 made through advocate Trivankumar Karnani 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 to 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 Kahn, submitted that the injuries he sustained were from a sudden fight that occurred in the heat of the moment.