The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted of kidnapping and murdering a five-year-old child, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances linking him to the offences. The Court accepted that the child’s death was homicidal, but held that this did not establish who committed the crime.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on October 29 set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud under Sections 302, 363 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, directing his release after procedural formalities unless required in another case [Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. The State of Maharashtra].
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat allowed Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2020. Justice Shirsat authored the judgment, which examined the prosecution’s reliance on last-seen evidence, alleged ransom calls, recoveries and forensic material.
The prosecution case and the appeal
The case arose from the disappearance of a five-year-old child in August 2012. The prosecution alleged that ransom calls followed and that Gaud’s disclosure led to recovery of the child’s body. In May 2018, the Sessions Court at Dindoshi convicted him of murder, kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence.
On appeal, the defence argued that none of the circumstances established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State maintained that the evidence, considered together, formed a complete chain. The High Court tested each link against the requirement that proved circumstances must exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.
Last-seen testimony did not establish guilt
The Bench declined to accept one witness’s account because of the delay in recording his statement, material omissions and his failure to disclose what he claimed to have seen despite knowing that the child was missing.
It also considered another witness’s uncorroborated testimony unsafe to rely on. Call records had not been produced to support conversations described by him, and other people whose statements the police had recorded were not examined at trial.
In paragraphs 21–23, the Court noted the five-day interval between the alleged last sighting and recovery of the body. With the time of death not stated by the doctor, the evidence did not exclude the intervention of another person. The last-seen circumstance was therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Recovery and electronic evidence left further gaps
The Court found reasonable doubt over whether discovery of the body resulted from Gaud’s information. The investigating officer admitted that the complainant had already disclosed the place where it was found. The Bench also questioned the reliability of a recovery witness who regularly acted as a police panch and had been supplied the panchnama before testifying.
The judgment expressly cautioned that acting as a panch in earlier cases does not automatically disqualify a witness. Its concern was the particular evidence of the witness’s relationship with the police in this case.
The alleged ransom recordings likewise failed to establish the caller’s identity. The High Court recorded that the expert report was not brought on record and that the trial judgment itself described the result as negative in relation to Gaud.
In paragraph 46, the Bench noted that call-detail records, the relevant nodal officers’ reports and Section 65B certificates had not been brought on record to establish use of the recovered SIM card in Gaud’s phone. Recovery of articles alone could not supply the missing link to the offences. The chemical analysis also did not conclusively connect him with the child’s death.
Kidnapping also required proof of taking or enticing
The Court separately examined the kidnapping conviction. It found no reliable circumstantial evidence that Gaud had taken or enticed the child from lawful guardianship. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it explained that finding a missing minor in a stranger’s custody does not, by itself, prove kidnapping. Suspicion could not replace proof.
The Bench consequently found no material to sustain the Section 201 conviction either. Its decision was an acquittal on the evidentiary record, rather than a finding that no homicide had occurred.
The operative directions
The Court quashed the May 5, 2018 conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 06 of 2013. Before release, Gaud must execute a personal-recognizance bond of Rs 50,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, corresponding to Section 437A CrPC, to secure his appearance if an appeal is filed against the acquittal.
Although it set aside the convictions altogether, the Bench additionally criticised the trial court’s direction that all sentences run consecutively. It cited precedent against directing a life sentence to run consecutively with a fixed-term sentence. This sentencing observation was separate from the failure of proof that led to acquittal.
Case Title: Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2020
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44113-DB
Status: Final judgment; appeal allowed, convictions and sentences set aside; release directed subject to the stated conditions.