The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man serving a life sentence for the 2012 kidnapping and murder of a five-year-old boy in Kandivali, Mumbai. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking him to the crime.
A Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat allowed the criminal appeal filed by Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud. It set aside his conviction under Sections 302, 363 and 201 of the IPC.
Background
The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay at Dindoshi had convicted Gaud on 05.05.2018. It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder, five years’ rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and two years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence, with all sentences to run consecutively.
According to the prosecution, the boy went missing on 26.08.2012 after going out to play. His father then received calls from a person calling himself “Raja,” who claimed to have the child and demanded ₹50,000. Gaud was arrested on 30.08.2012. The prosecution said his disclosure statement on 31.08.2012 led to the recovery of the child’s body.
Arguments
Advocate Prashant Pandey, appearing for the appellant along with Advocates Riddhima Mangaonkar, Neha Balani and Dinesh Jadhwani, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain was incomplete. He submitted that:
- the place where the body was found was already known to the police;
- the last-seen witnesses were unreliable;
- the voice-expert report was negative; and
- the panch witnesses were habitual panchas.
APP Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, for the State, contended that all four circumstances had been proved by cogent evidence. She argued that the recovery was valid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that the delay in recording a witness’s statement was not fatal.
Court’s Findings
Last seen together. The Bench rejected the testimony of P.W. 5, whose statement was recorded after fifteen days. He had not told the police, his brother or the boy’s father that he had seen the child with the accused. The Court observed that “P.W. 5 appears to be a got up witness.”
On P.W. 6, the Court noted that he was himself a suspect and had learnt the accused’s name from the police. No call records supported his account, and the prosecution did not examine the three persons who could have corroborated it. The Court said it would be “hazardous to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of this witness.” It added that the five-day gap before the body was found did not rule out a third person’s involvement.
Recovery of the body. The Court found that the panch witness had acted in 13 cases for Kandivali Police Station and had received a copy of the panchnama before he testified. It called him “a regular stock panch of the police.” The Investigating Officer also admitted that the complainant had disclosed the place where the body was found, and that until 4 pm on 31.08.2012 the accused had not.
Ransom calls and electronic evidence. The Bench noted that:
- the father did not mention the ransom call when he lodged the FIR the same evening;
- the voice expert’s report was never brought on record; and
- neither CDRs nor Section 65B certificates were produced to link the SIM card and mobile phone to the calls.
The Court relied on Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan on the need for the 65B certificate.
The Court accepted that the death was homicidal but held that the chemical analyser’s reports were inconclusive. It concluded:
“Thus, we hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances which would unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused.”
On the kidnapping charge, the Bench relied on Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat and observed that “suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof.”
The Court also held that the trial court “could not have directed the life sentence to run consecutively with a fixed term sentence”, citing O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala and Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. The State.
Outcome
The High Court quashed the conviction and acquitted Gaud of all charges. It directed that he be released forthwith unless required in any other case, on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 under Section 481 of the BNSS.
Case Title: Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2020
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Date: 29 October 2026
