MUMBAI, March 30 -- Nearly two months after a sessions court sentenced 26-year-old Shree Ambadas Jogdhankar to life imprisonment for the murder of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja and acquitted co-accused Diya Padalkar, the victim's mother, Nidhi Kukreja, has moved the Bombay High Court challenging Padalkar's acquittal, arguing that crucial evidence was ignored and justice for her daughter remains incomplete. On January 21, 2026, the judge sentenced Jogdhankar to life imprisonment for the murder of Jhanvi, a Santacruz resident, during a New Year's Eve party in the early hours of January 1, 2021. The court, however, acquitted Diya, Kukreja's childhood friend, granting her the benefit of doubt due to lack of conclusive evidence. Unwilling to accept the acquittal, Jhanvi's mother, Nidhi Kukreja, moved the high court on Friday through advocate Trivankumar Karnani, contending that the trial court failed to properly assess the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence and misapplied the legal standard of "benefit of doubt". According to the prosecution, the incident unfolded during a New Year's Eve gathering at Bhagwati Heights in Khar, hosted by a common friend. Earlier that evening, Kukreja had celebrated her father Prakash's birthday at home before heading to the party along with Padalkar and Jogdhankar. Police alleged that tensions flared at the party when Kukreja objected to Jogdhankar getting physically close to Padalkar, who was also her neighbour. What began as an argument escalated into a violent confrontation. The trio reportedly moved towards the staircase, where Kukreja was assaulted and dragged down the steps. At around 2am, the host discovered Kukreja lying in a pool of blood on the staircase and alerted the police. She was rushed to Bhabha Hospital, where she was declared dead. The post-mortem report documented 48 injuries, including a fractured skull, findings that underscored the severity and sustained nature of the assault. Both accused were arrested on the same day. In her plea, Kukreja's mother has argued that the sessions court's decision to acquit Padalkar was "erroneous and illogical". "The trial court granted undue benefit of doubt despite cogent and consistent evidence. The principle applies only when two reasonable views are possible. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to guilt," the plea states....