Bombay High Court Acquits Man in Five Year Old Child Murder Case, Finds Last Seen Evidence, Ransom Calls and Purported Body Recovery Legally Unreliable
Bombay High Court Overturns Kidnapping and Murder Convictions, Cites Broken Circumstantial Chain, Missing Electronic Evidence Certification and Unlawful Consecutive Life Sentence Direction by Trial Court
Facts
Five-year-old Sagar Sharma went missing from Kandivali, Mumbai, on 26 August 2012. His father reported alleged ransom calls demanding ₹50,000; a decomposed body was recovered on 31 August 2012. The prosecution alleged that Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud was seen with the child, used a phone connected to the ransom demands and led police to the body. In Sessions Case No. 06/2013, the Dindoshi Sessions Court convicted him on 5 May 2018 under IPC Sections 363 (kidnapping), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), awarding five years’ rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment and two years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with fines, all directed to run consecutively. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentences in Criminal Appeal No. 294/2020.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt an unbroken chain of circumstances identifying the appellant as the child’s kidnapper and killer; whether delayed last-seen testimony, purported discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and uncertified electronic material were reliable; whether the “taking or enticing” requirement of Section 361 IPC was established; and whether a life sentence could run consecutively with fixed-term sentences.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that no one witnessed the kidnapping or killing. The last-seen witnesses were unreliable: PW-5 delayed reporting a crucial observation and omitted material facts, while PW-6 lacked independent corroboration; five days elapsed before recovery. Police already knew the alleged discovery location, undermining Section 27; the pancha was repeatedly used by police. Ransom calls lacked proved call-detail records, credible voice identification and Section 65B certification. Chemical analysis did not link him to the offence, and the asserted ransom motive had not been proved. The trial court additionally erred in ordering consecutive life and term imprisonment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the last-seen witnesses were consistent and that any delay in recording PW-5’s statement caused no prejudice. It defended the recovery of the child’s body pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure, supported the seizure evidence despite repeated service by panch witnesses, and relied upon ransom calls, the SIM/mobile recoveries, post-mortem findings and laboratory results. Taken cumulatively, the circumstances allegedly excluded every innocent hypothesis and justified affirmation of the Sessions Court’s conviction.
Analysis of the Law
In a wholly circumstantial prosecution, each incriminating link must be proved and the completed chain must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; suspicion cannot replace proof. “Last seen” gains force only with a sufficiently proximate time gap and supporting circumstances. Section 27 of the Evidence Act admits only information distinctly relating to a genuinely discovered fact, not a confession or recovery whose location police already knew. Electronic records relied upon as secondary evidence require statutory Section 65B compliance. Section 361 IPC requires proof that the accused took or enticed a minor out of lawful guardianship; mere association or discovery does not suffice. Under Section 31 CrPC, life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively with a fixed sentence.
Precedent Analysis
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, provides the five conditions for circumstantial conviction; Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808, protects the accused where reasonable competing views persist. Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45, and Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550, limit reliance on an isolated last-seen circumstance. Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371, addresses suspect delays in witness statements. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, restricts Section 27 discoveries. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, (2020) 7 SCC 1, address Section 65B. Anversinh v. State of Gujarat, 2021 INSC 16, explains “taking or enticing”; O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501, concerns concurrent life and term sentences.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found PW-5’s unexplained 15-day delay, significant omissions and failure to tell police despite knowing of the missing child rendered his account unsafe. PW-6 was himself suspected, lacked call-record corroboration, and the available witnesses accompanying him were withheld. The five-day gap before discovery allowed intervening possibilities. Although skull fractures proved homicidal death, they did not identify the perpetrator. PW-12 admitted that police were told the body’s location before the appellant’s alleged disclosure; PW-2 was a regular police pancha supplied the panchnama before testifying. Ransom evidence was weakened by the father’s omissions, a negative voice-expert finding noted by the trial court, absent proved CDRs/nodal evidence and missing Section 65B certificates. SIM recovery from a co-accused and inconclusive chemical results supplied no reliable link. No credible proof established taking or enticing the child; hence Sections 363, 302 and 201 all failed. The Bench independently criticised consecutive sentencing with life imprisonment.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed all convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 363 and 201 IPC, and acquitted Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud of every charge. It directed his release forthwith unless required in another case, after compliance with procedural formalities and execution of a ₹50,000 personal recognisance bond under Section 481 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437A CrPC). The judgment stresses that even a tragic homicidal death cannot justify conviction without proof establishing this accused’s participation; defective electronic evidence and disputed recoveries cannot complete an otherwise broken circumstantial chain.
Case: Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. State of Maharashtra
Court: Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2020; 2026:BHC-AS:44113-DB
Judge: Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat (author)
Date: 29 October 2026 (reserved 30 July 2026)
Result: Appeal allowed; IPC Sections 302, 363 and 201 convictions set aside; appellant acquitted and release directed, subject to bond.
