4 min readMumbaiFeb 4, 2026 12:28 AM IST
First published on: Feb 4, 2026 at 12:28 AM IST
THE SESSIONS court has termed the police investigation into the murder of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja at a New Year’s Eve party in 2021 as defective, citing careless handling of evidence at the crime scene that ultimately weakened the prosecution’s case against one of the accused.
The court observed that incriminating articles seized from the spot were improperly collected and transported without sealing, rendering forensic findings unreliable. As a result, the alleged involvement of accused Diya Padalkar could not be established, leading to her acquittal. The other accused, Shree Jogdhankar, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The discarded evidence included a spot panchnama prepared by the police, which listed clothes worn by the victim and a bed cover on which Padalkar was allegedly lying at the party host’s residence.
Police had claimed that Padalkar was involved in a scuffle between Jogdhankar and Kukreja, relying on the presence of the victim’s blood on the bed cover. However, the court found that this material had not been handled in accordance with procedure.
“In the present case, it is clear from the admitted CCTV footage, that no care was taken by the police officers while conducting spot panchanama or while taking the samples. Those were not sealed at the spot nor the independent witnesses were present, though it is so mentioned in the panchnama. What can be gathered is that spot panchnama was prepared by the police officers subsequently and not at the spot. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon such manipulated documents,” additional sessions judge S R Navander said.
Defence lawyers Wahab Khan and Ashok Mishra relied on CCTV footage to argue that the evidence was mishandled. The footage showed a forensic technician collecting samples and leaving the scene, after which incriminating articles were placed in polythene bags and wrapped in a bedsheet. A building security guard was then instructed to carry the bundle to a police vehicle around 10 am, with no police personnel remaining at the site thereafter.
However, the spot panchnama stated that the process was conducted at 9 am in the presence of police officers and independent witnesses, as mandated by law.
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 took no care to avoid even accidental tampering of 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.
In contrast, the court relied on other evidence against Jogdhankar, including a forensic report related to a shirt seized from him later at the police station in accordance with procedure. The shirt was found to have blood stains matching that of the victim.
“When the investigation of the case as a whole is considered, what can be gathered is that except the flaw of preparation of spot panchnama and seizure of incriminating articles from the spot, other investigation is satisfactory,” the court said.
Jogdhankar had claimed that he was falsely implicated, but the court rejected the argument, observing that there was no motive for either the police or the party attendees to frame him, as they were friends and had no known enmity.
“When the investigation of the case as a whole is considered, what can be gathered is that except the flaw of preparation of spot panchnama and seizure of incriminating articles from the spot, other investigation is satisfactory,” the court said.
Share
