Court finds last seen evidence unreliable, electronic ransom call evidence inadmissible, and recovery of dead body inconclusive; sets aside conviction and sentences including life imprisonment
In a significant judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat) acquitted Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud, who was earlier convicted by the Sessions Court for kidnapping, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence relating to the tragic death of a minor child named Sagar. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 363 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment along with other terms to run consecutively.
The High Court's judgment is a detailed analysis of circumstantial evidence, which was the entire basis of the prosecution's case. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the five-year-old child Sagar from lawful guardianship, demanded ransom through phone calls, and ultimately murdered the child. However, the High Court found that the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove guilt was incomplete and riddled with inconsistencies.
Key Findings of the Court:
1. Last Seen Evidence Unreliable: The prosecution's claim that the accused was last seen with the victim was primarily based on testimonies of two witnesses (P.W. 5 and P.W. 6). The Court observed that the statement of P.W. 5 was recorded after an unexplained delay of fifteen days, and he did not disclose the key fact of seeing the accused with the child to anyone earlier, casting serious doubts on his credibility. P.W. 6's testimony was uncorroborated and the prosecution failed to examine other material witnesses mentioned by him. The time gap between the alleged last sighting and the recovery of the body was wide enough to allow for possible third-party involvement. Therefore, the last seen theory was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Recovery of Dead Body Not Conclusive: While the dead body of the victim child was recovered following disclosures by the accused, the Investigating Officer admitted that the location of the body was already known to the complainant and police prior to the accused's disclosure. Additionally, one of the panch witnesses was a regular police panch (witness), raising doubts about the independence of the recovery. Hence, the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not proved conclusively to be at the instance of the accused.
3. Electronic Evidence on Ransom Calls Inadmissible: The prosecution sought to rely on ransom calls allegedly made from a SIM card linked to the accused. However, the complainant did not properly identify the caller's voice, the expert voice analysis report was not proved and was negative against the accused, and crucially, the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory Section 65B certificate required for admissibility of electronic evidence such as call recordings and call detail records. Consequently, the electronic evidence was held inadmissible and unreliable.
4. Motive Not Established: The prosecution's narrative that the child was kidnapped for ransom was undermined by material omissions in the complainant's statements and lack of corroborative evidence. The Court held that absence of motive in a case resting on circumstantial evidence weighs in favor of the accused.
5. Medical Evidence Confirms Homicidal Death but Does Not Link Accused: The post-mortem revealed fractured skull bones indicating homicidal death. However, such medical evidence alone cannot connect the accused with the crime in absence of credible incriminating circumstances.
6. No Proof of Kidnapping under Section 363 IPC: The prosecution failed to prove that the accused took or enticed the minor from lawful guardianship. Mere suspicion or custody of the child by the accused is insufficient to prove kidnapping.
7. Section 201 IPC Charge Also Unsustainable: Since involvement in the kidnapping and murder was not established, the charge of causing disappearance of evidence also fell through.
8. Trial Court Erred in Sentencing: The trial court's direction to run life imprisonment consecutively with fixed term sentences was held to be contrary to settled law; life imprisonment sentences must run concurrently with fixed term sentences.
On the basis of these findings, the Bombay High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud, quashed and set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the accused of all charges. The Court ordered his immediate release on execution of a personal bond for appearance if an appeal is preferred against the acquittal.
This judgment reiterates the high standard of proof required in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be complete and exclude all reasonable hypotheses except the guilt of the accused. The case also underscores the importance of proper procedures in electronic evidence admissibility under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and careful scrutiny of recovery witnesses.
Bottom Line:
Circumstantial evidence - Kidnapping and murder of minor child - Last seen evidence found unreliable due to delayed statement and lack of corroboration - Recovery of dead body and articles under Section 27 not conclusively proved - Electronic evidence regarding ransom calls not admissible/proved in absence of proper identification, expert support and Section 65B certificate - Motive also not established - Chain of circumstances incomplete - Conviction under Sections 302, 363 and 201 IPC set aside and accused acquitted - Trial Court also erred in directing life sentence to run consecutively with fixed term sentences.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 363, 201; Indian Evidence Act Sections 27, 7, 8, 65B; Criminal Procedure Code Section 31
Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006284
