Jogdhankar has been behind bars since 2021. The court had acquitted 23-year-old Diya Padalkar, a co-accused, saying she deserves the “benefit of the doubt”.

The 81-page detailed judgment delivered by Additional Sessions Judge SR Navander was made available on Tuesday. The court said evidence showed that Kukreja and Jogdhankar were in a relationship and she felt hurt by his flirtatious behavior towards Padalkar at the party, so she felt hurt and called a friend. He had told his friend that he didn’t feel good about her proximity but that he didn’t want to lose her. She then headed towards the stairs and was followed by the two defendants.

“In the natural course, an altercation ensued, which turned into a violent and angry fight. From the scene of crime and medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased, it appears that she was pushed or thrown from the staircase, resulting in fatal head injuries. The only inference from the above circumstances is that accused No. 1 (Jogdhankar), during the fight, furiously assaulted her, pulled her hair and finally pushed her from the staircase,” the court said.

‘Unexplained injuries’

The court took into account Jogdhankar’s medical report which showed 12 injuries caused to him, including rib fractures and abrasions and bruises on his back. “According to the accused, he is innocent. However, he has not explained how he had suffered numerous injuries at the relevant time. It was the fact within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and… the burden was on him to make the disclosure, to establish his innocence. Failure to give a satisfactory explanation regarding the injuries on his person compels the court to infer that those injuries were sustained by him during the fight with the deceased,” the court said.

There were no witnesses to the fight and no CCTV cameras at the exact spot on the staircase from the eighth floor to the ground floor where a resident of the building found Kukreja’s body after 2am.

‘A girl who witnesses a horrible incident may react differently’

On Padalkar’s involvement, the court said that while the police had claimed that she and Jogdhankar had a common intention to cause the death of their friend, no such proof was found. The prosecution relied on an injury to her lip to claim that she was also involved in the fight. The court said he might have had an altercation with Kukreja with some pushing or fighting, which resulted in an injury to his lip, but his active involvement in the assault cannot be seen.

“…it was not proven that any other injuries had been caused to him. His clothes were not stained with blood or torn. If he had actively participated in the assault along with accused number 1, he would probably have suffered other injuries such as abrasions or contusions. The absence of such injuries makes his participation in the fatal assault doubtful,” the court said, recognizing Padalkar.

The police claimed that the fact that none of the accused revealed that a fight had taken place or alerted anyone about the injuries caused to Kukreja indicates their role. The court said Padalkar may not have disclosed it out of fear. “A girl who witnesses such a horrible incident may react differently. Out of fear, she may not have revealed what happened to others. Simply, due to her non-disclosure, she cannot be considered an accomplice,” the court said.

Kukreja’s mother Nidhi said on Saturday that she will file an appeal against the acquittal.