Mumbai, Nov. 11 -- The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the conviction of security guard Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal alias Pathan for the 2012 murder of 25-year-old lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha, but refused to enhance his sentence to death penalty. The division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the appeals filed by the state government and the victim's father, Atanu Purkayastha, seeking capital punishment for Sajjad, while also rejecting Sajjad's appeal challenging his conviction. The division bench had reserved the order on August 14. Sajjad was convicted by the sessions court in Mumbai in 2014 for murder, house trespass, and outraging the modesty of a woman, and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. He was also sentenced for lesser durations under other charges, which were to run consecutively. The state and the victim's father later sought enhancement of the sentence to death penalty, calling it a case of "rarest of rare" brutality. Purkayastha used to work as a legal manager with a private company and lived with her fiance, lawyer Avik Sengupta, in a rented flat at Bhakti Park, Wadala. On the night of August 8, 2012, while she was alone at home during a power outage, Sajjad, then employed as a security guard at the residential complex where she lived, entered her apartment using duplicate keys, allegedly with the intent to sexually assault her. When she resisted, he stabbed her multiple times, causing her death. Her fiance discovered her body early the next morning and alerted the police while Sajjad was arrested two days later. Defense counsel Yug Mohit Chaudhry, representing Sajjad, argued that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence was incomplete. He cited lapses in investigation, including alleged manipulation of panchanamas, delay in registration of the first information report (FIR), failure to record proper confessions, and not sealing samples with wax as required by law. Chaudhry also questioned the reliability of DNA evidence and alleged that key exhibits were planted to implicate the accused. He further pointed out that the trial court had illegally sentenced him to imprisonment "for the remainder of natural life", which was not recognised under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at the time. Special public prosecutor Manoj Mohite, appearing for the state, countered that the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and consistent. Sajjad was last seen outside Purakayashtha's flat shortly before her death, his DNA matched strands of hair found on the victim and at the crime scene, and the knife purchased by him that was used for the murder carried her bloodstains, Mohite said. Sajjad had also confessed his crime to two co-workers soon after the incident, the lawyer said. Mohite described the act as premeditated and sexually motivated, pointing to the disarray in the flat, torn clothing, and evidence of resistance. He said Sajjad had abused his position as a security guard to exploit Purakayashta's vulnerability. Counsel for the victim's father, Abhishek Yende, urged the court to impose death penalty on Sajjad, arguing that his conduct, especially him absconding after jumping parole in 2016, showed he had no remorse and warranted the harshest punishment. Sajjad was rearrested from a village in Jammu and Kashmir in 2017 after he absconded while on parole in 2016. After examining in detail the statements of 39 witnesses who deposed during the trial, including forensic experts, investigating officers, and independent witnesses, the court upheld the trial court's findings that Sajjad's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt through a consistent chain of evidence. The court, however, reaffirmed the settled legal principle that death sentences must be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases where reform is impossible, observing that life imprisonment was an adequate punishment in this instance....