Broken Chain of Circumstances Frees Life Convict, Rules Bombay High Court

Case: Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud v. The State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Proceedings: Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2020

Court Observation

“The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances which would unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused.”

Summary

The Bombay High Court has acquitted Manishprasad Narsingh Gaud, who was 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 establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime, and that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

Each of the four circumstances relied on by the prosecution failed: the last-seen witnesses were found unworthy of credit, the alleged ransom-call recording and SIM evidence were unproved for want of call records and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the recovery of the child’s body was compromised because the investigating officer admitted that the father had disclosed the spot before the accused did.

Key Holdings

• In a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be proved; if any link fails, the conviction cannot stand.
• Electronic evidence such as call records and SIM usage cannot be relied on without the required records and certification.
• A recovery of a body cannot be attributed to the accused’s disclosure where the material shows the place was already known to the complainant.
• The fact that a death was homicidal does not, by itself, establish who committed the crime.

Directions Issued

• The appellant is to be released from custody forthwith, unless required in another case, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure his appearance should the State appeal.

Background

The five-year-old boy went missing in Kandivali in August 2012, and his decomposed body was found a few days later. The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay at Dindoshi convicted Gaud on 5 May 2018 in Sessions Case No. 06 of 2013 under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder, five years for kidnapping and two years for causing disappearance of evidence, all to run consecutively. He appealed against that conviction and sentence.

Related Articles

• Witness Saw Accused Near Deceased, Blood Stained Weapon Recovered: Gujarat High Court Accepts Circumstantial Evidence To Affirm Murder Conviction
• Conviction Cannot Be Solely On Extra Judicial Confession, Circumstances Must Form A Complete Chain: SC
• Eyewitness Account Can’t Be Discarded Merely Because Of Inconsistencies With Medical Evidence: Supreme Court

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.