4 minutes of readingBombayFebruary 4, 2026, 12:28 am
THE SESSIONS court has branded the police investigation into the murder of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja at a New Year’s Eve party in 2021 as flawed, citing sloppy handling of evidence at the crime scene that ultimately weakened the prosecution’s case against one of the accused.
The court noted that the incriminating items seized at the scene were improperly collected and transported without sealing, making the forensic results unreliable. As a result, accused Diya Padalkar’s alleged involvement could not be established, leading to her acquittal. The other accused, Shree Jogdhankar, was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The discarded evidence included a panchnama prepared by the police, which listed the clothes worn by the victim and a quilt on which Padalkar was allegedly lying at the party host’s residence.
The police had claimed that Padalkar was involved in a fight between Jogdhankar and Kukreja, based on the presence of the victim’s blood on the bed cover. However, the court considered that this material had not been handled in accordance with procedure.
“In the present case, it is clear from the admitted CCTV footage that the police officials did not take any care while conducting the spot panchanama or taking the samples. These were not sealed at the spot nor were the independent witnesses present, though it is mentioned so in the panchnama. What can be deduced is that the spot panchnama was prepared by the police officers afterwards and not at the spot. Therefore, such doctored documents cannot be relied upon,” said additional sessions judge SR Navander.
Defense lawyers Wahab Khan and Ashok Mishra relied on CCTV footage to argue that evidence was mishandled. The footage showed a forensic technician collecting samples and leaving the scene, after which the incriminating items were placed in polythene bags and wrapped in a sheet. A security guard at the building was then instructed to carry the bundle to a police vehicle at around 10am, with no police officers remaining at the scene thereafter.
However, the panchnama spot claimed that the trial was carried out at 9 am in the presence of police officers and independent witnesses, as required by law.
Story continues below this ad.
The court noted that the Police Manual clearly outlines procedures for collecting and safeguarding evidence to prevent tampering, which were not followed in this case. “He failed to take care to avoid even accidental tampering with the samples… It is observed that in the absence of proper sealing and custody of the incriminating articles, the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be relied upon,” the court said.
Instead, the court relied on other evidence against Jogdhankar, including a forensic report relating to a T-shirt that was later confiscated from him at the police station in accordance with procedure. The shirt was found to have blood stains that matched those of the victim.
“When the investigation of the case is considered as a whole, what can be deduced is that barring the error in preparation of panchnama on the spot and seizure of incriminating articles from the spot, other investigations are satisfactory,” the court said.
Jogdhankar had claimed that he was falsely implicated, but the court rejected the argument, observing that there was no reason for either the police or the partygoers to incriminate him as they were friends and had no known intimacy.
