Mumbai Court Highlights Evidence Mishandling in Jhanvi Kukreja Murder Trial
Five years after the tragic death of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja at a New Year's Eve party in Mumbai, a sessions court has delivered a verdict that underscores critical flaws in police procedures. While convicting one accused, the court pointed to careless handling of evidence, including wrapping seized items in a bedsheet instead of proper sealing, which significantly weakened the prosecution's case.
Background of the Case
On January 1, 2021, Jhanvi Kukreja's body was discovered on the ground floor of a staircase in a residential building in Khar, a western suburb of Mumbai. She had attended a New Year's Eve celebration on the building terrace with friends, where a scuffle allegedly led to her death. The police arrested two individuals: Diya Padalkar, Kukreja's childhood friend, and Shree Jogdhankar, another friend. Authorities claimed that Jogdhankar and Kukreja were in a relationship, and his flirtatious behavior with Padalkar sparked an argument that escalated into violence.
Court Verdict and Evidence Issues
On January 31, the Mumbai sessions court convicted Shree Jogdhankar on murder charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Diya Padalkar was acquitted, receiving the benefit of doubt. The court's decision hinged on a detailed examination of the evidence presented by the police, which included articles seized from the crime scene, such as Kukreja's clothes, jewellery, and items belonging to the accused. A key piece of evidence was a bedsheet from a flat in the building, allegedly with blood traces from both Kukreja and Padalkar, intended to implicate Padalkar.
However, the court flagged severe deficiencies in the spot panchnama—a procedure for seizing evidence in the presence of independent witnesses. The police sub-inspector responsible for the panchnama claimed that a forensic expert collected and sealed the evidence, but defence lawyers presented CCTV footage contradicting this. The footage showed that after the forensic technician left, the articles were placed in polythene bags, wrapped in a bedsheet, and carried by a building security guard to a police vehicle, without proper sealing or witness oversight.
Procedural Violations and Legal Implications
The court referenced the Police Manual, specifically Rule 148(2), which mandates that evidence must be handled to preserve its original condition and sealed promptly to prevent contamination or tampering. Previous judgments were cited, emphasizing that without proper sealing and custody, forensic reports from laboratories like the FSL cannot be relied upon. In this case, the court noted that the evidence was collected carelessly, transported openly, and thus deemed unreliable for prosecution purposes.
Despite these issues, the conviction of Jogdhankar was supported by other evidence, including a shirt seized from him with proper procedure. DNA analysis confirmed bloodstains on the shirt belonged to Kukreja, and witness statements along with injury patterns were considered. This highlights the importance of meticulous evidence collection in criminal trials, as any lapse can compromise the entire case, allowing accused individuals to challenge the integrity of the evidence.
Importance of Proper Evidence Handling
After a crime is detected, securing the crime scene and following strict protocols for evidence collection are crucial to ensure forensic analysis remains valid. Contamination or improper handling can render evidence inadmissible, as seen in this trial. The police and forensic experts must adhere to procedures, including sealing items in the presence of independent witnesses, to maintain chain of custody and prevent claims of tampering. This case serves as a stark reminder of how procedural oversights can impact justice delivery, even in high-profile murder trials.
