Suspicion cannot replace proof: Bombay High Court acquits man in child murder case

The Bombay High Court has overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged kidnapping and murder of a five-year-old child, ruling that a broken chain of circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a criminal conviction. In a stern reminder of criminal jurisprudence, the Bench emphasized that no matter how strong the suspicion or how heinous the crime, the prosecution must bridge the gap between 'may be guilty' and 'must be guilty' with cogent evidence.

Two-judge bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat heard the appeal challenging the 2018 judgment of the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The Appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 363, Section 302, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The Bombay High Court, after a meticulous review of the evidence, found that the prosecution's reliance on the 'last seen together' theory and recovery statements failed to meet the rigorous standards required in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Key Takeaways

Suspicion Is Not Proof

Reaffirms the fundamental principle that judicial conclusions must be based on proven facts rather than mere conjectures or the gravity of the alleged offence.

Strict Adherence to Section 65B

The failure to provide a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 renders electronic evidence, such as mobile call recordings or CDRs, inadmissible in a criminal trial.

Consecutive Sentencing Restricted

Clarifies that a fixed-term sentence cannot be directed to run consecutively with a life imprisonment sentence, as life imprisonment entails the remainder of a convict's natural life.

Standard for Section 27 Recoveries

Reiterates that the mere discovery of a fact at the instance of an accused does not automatically establish their involvement in the crime unless a direct link is proved.

Inadequacy of Last-Seen Evidence and Motive

The Bombay High Court scrutinized the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the victim with the Appellant. It noted that the statements were recorded with significant delay and that the witnesses' conduct was unnatural. The Bench observed that the time gap between the last-seen incident and the discovery of the body was wide enough to permit the intervention of third parties. On the issue of motive, the High Court found the prosecution's theory of kidnapping for ransom unsubstantiated, especially after the voice-expert report turned out negative for the Appellant.

The Bombay Court highlighted that "...the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused... there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Flaws in Forensic and Electronic Evidence

The Bombay High Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to exhibit mandatory certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the electronic records. Furthermore, the recovery of the dead body was found to be doubtful as the Investigating Officer admitted that the location was already disclosed by the complainant.

Ratio

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances so complete that it excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. A conviction cannot be sustained on suspicion alone, and procedural requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence and Section 27 recovery statements must be strictly satisfied. Furthermore, a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively with a fixed-term sentence.

Background

The case arose from the disappearance of a 5-year-old child in August 2012. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant kidnapped the child and demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/- before murdering him. The Trial Court had convicted the Appellant based on the 'last seen' theory, the recovery of the body at his instance, and mobile phone records. The High Court, however, relied on precedents like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra ( "(1984) 4 SCC 116": 1984 CaseBase(SC) 194) and Anand Jakkapa Pujari @ Gaddadar vs. The State of Karnataka to hold that the conditions for circumstantial evidence were not met. The Bombay High Court noted that the panch witnesses appeared to be 'habitual' and their testimonies lacked credibility. Finding the chain of evidence broken and motive unproven, the Bench set aside the conviction and ordered the Appellant's immediate release.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 294 of 2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44113-DB
Case Title: Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud V/S. The State of Maharashtra
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Adv. Prashant Pandey a/w Adv. Riddhima Mangaonkar, Adv. Neha Balani and Adv. Dinesh Jadhwani i/b W3 Legal LLP
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for the Respondent-State

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 7134