skip to content
Advertisement
Premium
This is an archive article published on September 24, 2022

Bombay HC issues notices in response to plea by father seeking death for convict

Atanu Purkayastha had sought enhancement of life sentence of convicted watchman Sajjad Mugal Pathan.

In July 2014, observing that the case was not “rarest of rare,” a sessions court in Mumbai had refused to sentence Sajjad Mugal alias Sajjad Pathan to death and sentenced him to life imprisonment instead.
In July 2014, observing that the case was not “rarest of rare,” a sessions court in Mumbai had refused to sentence Sajjad Mugal alias Sajjad Pathan to death and sentenced him to life imprisonment instead.

The Bombay High Court recently issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the convict in the Pallavi Purkayastha murder case, seeking their response to a revision plea filed by Atanu Purkayastha, the father of the 25-year-old lawyer, who was murdered in 2012.

Atanu Purkayastha had sought enhancement of life sentence of convicted watchman Sajjad Mugal Pathan.

A division bench of Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Nitin R Borkar was responding to the plea by the father, filed through advocate Abhishek Yende.

Story continues below this ad

In July 2014, observing that the case was not “rarest of rare,” a sessions court in Mumbai had refused to sentence Sajjad Mugal alias Sajjad Pathan to death and sentenced him to life imprisonment instead.

Pathan, a security guard at the building where Pallavi was staying, was convicted by a court in Mumbai for murder, molestation and criminal trespass in the case.

In 2015, the Maharashtra government approached the Bombay High Court, seeking the death penalty for Pathan.
In June this year, Atanu Purkayastha, through advocate Abhishek Yende, filed a revision application before the High Court, stating that the sentence awarded by the sessions court was not proportionate to the “heinousness of the gruesome murder”.

On September 5, Atanu Purkayastha had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in seeking revision of the sentence. The court issued notice to respondents in the same and posted the matter for further hearing on October 21.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement