Man gets life term for 50-year-old Juhu woman’s murder, Rs 70 lakh robbery

In 2019, the child in conflict with law had voluntarily pleaded guilty. The board had then noted that he had already spent four years in jail and it would not be proper to direct him to be sent to a special home. The board ordered his release on probation of good conduct under the supervision of an NGO and also directed him to perform community service at a state-run hospital twice a month for six months.

On Wednesday, the sessions court concluded the separate trial against the minor’s elder brother and found him guilty under sections including murder, theft and causing death while committing robbery of the Indian Penal Code.

The court considered that the minor and his elder brother’s involvement was established as the child in conflict with law had ‘admitted his guilt’. “….It is a cold blooded murder, planned murder of a lady for monetary gains. In fact, it is a murder of the hands that fed the family of the child in conflict with law,” A Subramaniam, principal judge of the sessions court, said.

According to submissions made by chief public prosecutor Jaysing Desai, Minoti Parikh was found dead on February 23, 2015 at her home where she lived with her daughter and husband, who then worked as an MD and Chairman of ZCL Chemicals Ltd. Both of them were at work when the crime took place.

One of the guards in the building had said that at the time of the incident between 11.30 am and 12 pm, the minor had asked him to bring some snacks. It was alleged that after the guard left, the minor’s elder brother reached the building. She was subsequently found strangled with 18 injuries.

The minor, who was employed two months before the incident, was not found at the residence and valuables were found missing hence he was suspected and booked by the police. The minor was apprehended from Haryana and his brother from New Delhi a few days later.

The prosecution had claimed that the elder brother had injury marks on his body, suspected to be from the scuffle with the victim. It was also claimed that while the elder brother worked in South Mumbai, his phone’s tower location on the day of the incident was in Juhu. It was also claimed that they had 12 calls between them on the day of the incident but none between the specific timing when the murder took place.

The prosecution also claimed that crucial evidence was the recovery of valuables from the accused. While his lawyers claimed that there were discrepancies in the seizures, the court said it was reliable and that it nailed the accused’s involvement.