Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.678 OF 2014

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-09-14 04:50:43
  • 41
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.678 OF 2014

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 113

Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2015 and Criminal Revision Application (ST) No.10473 of 2022

2025-11-10

A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale

Mr. Manoj S. Mohite, Ms. Priyanka Chavan, Ms. Ilsa Shaikh (for State); Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Gaurav Bhawnani, Mr. Anush Shetty i/by Mr. Khan Abdul Wahab (for Sajjad); Mr. Abhishek Yende, Mr. Rishikesh Y. Dube (for Revision Applicant)

The State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No.678/2014), Atanu Purkayastha (in Criminal Revision Application No.10473/2022), and Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal @ Pathan (in Criminal Appeal No.491/2015)

Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal @ Pathan (Respondent in Appeal No.678/2014 and Revision Application No.10473/2022) and The State of Maharashtra (Respondent in Appeal No.491/2015)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals and revision against conviction and sentence for murder and related offences, and for enhancement of sentence to capital punishment.

Remedy Sought

The convict (Sajjad) seeks acquittal; the State and the victim's father seek enhancement of sentence to death penalty.

Filing Reason

The trial court convicted Sajjad for murder and other offences; aggrieved, Sajjad filed appeal against conviction; the State and victim's father filed appeal/revision seeking death penalty instead of life imprisonment.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay) in Sessions Case No.738/2012 convicted Sajjad on 7th July 2014 for offences under IPC Sections 302, 354, 449 and Bombay Police Act Section 37(1)(a) r/w 135, and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder, 5 years for Section 354, 1 year for Bombay Police Act, with sentences to run consecutively.

Judgment Excerpts

A young lady Advocate namely Pallavi Purkayastha (victim/deceased) was sharing a rented flat No.1601, ‘B’ wing, 16th Floor, Himalayan Height Building, Bhakti Park, Wadala (E), Mumbai with her friend Avik Alok Sengupta (informant). On 10th August, 2012, the Police arrested Sajjad, under a Panchanama (Exhibit-112).

Procedural History

The case was registered on 9th August 2012 at Wadala T.T. Police Station as Crime No.181/2012 under IPC Sections 302 and 449. Investigation was later transferred to DCB-CID, Unit-VI, which registered it as C.R. No.79/2012 and added Bombay Police Act sections. Charge sheet was filed on 3rd November 2012. The case was committed to Sessions Court. Trial court framed charges on 24th April 2013. After trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused on 7th July 2014. Appeals and revision were filed. The High Court reserved judgment on 14th August 2025 and pronounced on 10th November 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 354, 449
  • Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1)(a), 135
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 209, 464
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
murder circumstantial evidence last seen theory DNA evidence extrajudicial confession death penalty Bombay Police Act security guard

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes TADA Charges for Non-compliance with Mandatory Prior Approval Under Section 20A(1). Invocation of Sections 3 and 5 of TADA Set Aside as Prior Written Approval from District Superintendent of Police Not Obtained. 2026-09-22 13:46:39
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landowners' Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Case by Condoning Delay. High Court's refusal to condone delay set aside as Court adopts liberal approach prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities under Article 300... 2026-09-22 13:46:37
Categories
Popular Tags
Writ Petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Limitation Dispute — Suit Remitted for Fresh Consider...

Supreme Court Refers Jurisdiction Conflict in Trade Marks Act and Commercial Courts Act to...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Tender Eligibility Dispute — Clarifies Judicial Revie...

Supreme Court Rejects Application Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Due to Limitat...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Lost Your Password?