Pallavi Purkayastha murder: Sessions Court reserves order on quantum of sentence

Mumbai: A Mumbai court today reserved itsorder on quantum of sentence to be awarded to a person convicted for killing 25-year-old city-based lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha in 2012. Sessions Judge Vrushali Joshi said she would pronounce the sentence on Monday after the prosecution concluded its arguments on sentence seeking award of death penalty to convict Sajjad Ahmed Mughal.

However, the defence counsel sought leniency for his client and pleaded for a life term instead of death penalty saying that the offence did not fall under the "rarest of the rare cases".

The court earlier this week convicted Mughal, who worked as a security guard at the building in suburban Wadala where the victim lived, for murder, molestation and criminal trespass. During the arguments on sentencing, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam listed as many as ten 'aggravating circumstances' to justify death sentence for the accused. Mughal was a security guard whose job was to protect but he committed a crime.

"By committing the crime the accused betrayed the confidence, faith and trust of Pallavi and if any lesser punishment is awarded then it will be a mockery of justice," Nikam said.

Nikam also argued that Mughal was in fact guilty of two murders of Pallavi and also of her fianc? Avik Sengupta, who died of brain hemorrhage in November 2013.

"Avik died of a mental shock," Nikam said. The special prosecutor also argued that it was a premeditated crime, pointing out that before going to her flat and assaulting her, Mughal inquired if Avik was home. The crime was committed with exceptional brutality, there were 16 external injuries on her body, he said. "Pallavi resisted but was helpless and she pleaded for mercy," argued
Nikam.

The prosecution also argued that Mughal enjoyed the act of killing and showed no remorse afterwards. Pallavi's mother Sumita, who was present, broke down while the arguments were on and was taken out of the courtroom. The defence lawyer argued that Mughal was not 25 years old as claimed by the police, but only 22 years, and there was no direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence against him.

"Mughal came to Mumbai so that he can work, earn money so that his brothers can continue their studies as his family depended on him," argued advocate Khan.

He also argued that Mughal had no criminal antecedent. "Chance of reformation is still there and he is not a threat to the society," advocate Khan said, adding his prison record was very clean and he was cooperative during the trial.

"A security guard killing someone is not a rare incident," he noted. Khan also contended that it was not a pre-planned crime as it was Pallavi who had called Mughal to fix the power outage at her flat. "What happened within the four corners of the wall only God, the accused and the victim know," he said.

Mughal, who belonged to Jammu and Kashmir, killed Pallavi on the night of August 9, 2012 when she was alone at the flat after he made advances at her which she resisted. The defence had argued during the trial that it was her fiance, Avik, who killed her.