Mumbai Sessions Court Sentences Shree Jogdhankar to Life in 2021 New Year’s Eve Murder; Co-accused Acquitted
After a five year trial, a Mumbai Sessions Court has sentenced Shree Jogdhankar to life imprisonment for the 2021 New Year’s Eve murder of 19 year old Jhanvi Kukreja, while acquitting co-accused Diya Padalkar for lack of conclusive evidence
CCTV and Forensics Centre Stage as Sessions Court Hands Life Term in Jhanvi Kukreja Case
On January 1, 2021, 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja was found dead at the stairwell of Bhagwati Heights in Khar after a New Year’s Eve celebration; the post-mortem recorded numerous injuries and police said she had been assaulted and dragged down the stairs from the fifth floor to the ground, a sequence that sparked a high-profile investigation and long trial.
The prosecution’s case was that Kukreja, who had attended the party with her friends Shree Ambadas Jogdhankar and Diya Padalkar, was upset at Jogdhankar’s proximity to Padalkar at the party; a quarrel ensued on the staircase, the prosecution says, and the two accused participated in a violent assault that ended in her death.
After more than five years of investigation and legal proceedings, a Mumbai sessions court on 31.01.2026 convicted Shree Jogdhankar of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment while acquitting co-accused Diya Padalkar for want of cogent evidence, the court explicitly gave Padalkar the benefit of doubt.
The prosecution relied predominantly on circumstantial evidence, forensic findings and CCTV footage as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the fatal act, so the trial turned on whether the circumstances, injuries, post-incident conduct and electronic evidence together pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court recorded that Kukreja had suffered multiple injuries, that the CCTV footage showed the movements of persons leaving the stairwell area and that Jogdhankar’s behaviour after the incident, including his calm movement on the ground floor and equivocal statements regarding his own injuries were circumstances that the court treated as inculpatory. The court emphasised that when a case is entirely circumstantial, the chain of circumstances must be complete and lead to only one inference: the guilt of the accused.
Applying that test, the court found that Jogdhankar’s presence on the stairwell, the injuries on the deceased, and his conduct afterwards permitted only the inference that he had violently assaulted the deceased and that the assault caused her death.
The defence contested every link of that chain. Jogdhankar’s defence version was that he had been attacked in the dark on the staircase from behind, that he had left the party before the fatality and had at one point spoken to the deceased at around 2:05 am, and that he was subsequently falsely implicated by police; counsel argued that the forensic and electronic material did not conclusively establish who caused the fatal injuries and that reasonable doubt remained.
Padalkar’s defence was that while she was present at the party and the stairwell, there was no direct proof of her participation in causing the fatal blows; the absence of injuries on her consistent with an active assailant and other gaps in the prosecution’s case, the court found, militated in her favour.
In hearing these contentions the court engaged in classic circumstantial-evidence analysis: it examined (a) the sequence of events on CCTV and testimony about movements within the building; (b) the pattern and severity of injuries recorded in the post-mortem; (c) contradictions or implausibilities in the accused’s statements; and (d) post-incident conduct (including any failure to raise alarm or seek help).
The court observed that being pushed or thrown from the second floor, as the court found to be the most likely mechanism of injury during the scuffle, would, in all probability, result in death, and that Jogdhankar’s conduct after the incident (calm demeanour, lack of timely alarm) was inconsistent with innocence.
On that basis the court concluded that the circumstantial evidence reached the threshold of proof required to convict him of murder.
Conversely, the court found that while Padalkar’s presence at the scene was established, the prosecution failed to prove her complicity in causing the fatal injuries beyond reasonable doubt; her solitary injury (a lip injury noted in reports) could have been caused in the scuffle and did not inexorably link her to the causative blows.
The acquittal thus rested on reasonable doubt, not on a factual finding that she was not present or uninvolved in the altercation.
For the public eye, several aspects of the case are likely to remain salient.
First, the case underscores how social gatherings and interpersonal disputes can quickly escalate into lethal violence; the interplay of alleged romantic jealousy, alcohol-fuelled arguments and confined party spaces emerged as the tragic backdrop.
Second, the trial highlights the prosecutorial reliance on CCTV and circumstantial proof in the absence of eyewitnesses; a reminder of both the power and the limits of electronic evidence.
Third, the acquittal of one accused and conviction of another will raise questions about investigative thoroughness, the framing of charges, and whether all participants roles were equally and fairly evaluated; the victim’s family has already signalled dissatisfaction with the acquittal and may pursue further remedies.
Finally, sentencing to life imprisonment; while not the “rarest of rare” death penalty category, reflects the court’s view of the gravity of the offence and its impact on the community.
The family and public commentary indicate the matter is not necessarily at an end: challenges to the acquittal or sentence by appeal or review are foreseeable, and the record of forensic, CCTV and medico-legal material will be the battleground in any higher court scrutiny.
Case title: State of Maharashtra v. Shree Ambadas Jogdhankar & Anr
Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan Navandar
Date of judgment: 31.01.2026.