Case at a Glance
A man sentenced to life imprisonment in 2018 for the kidnapping and murder of a five-year-old boy who went missing in Kandivali, Mumbai, in August 2012 has been acquitted by the Bombay High Court. Examining each link of the circumstantial case — last seen, motive, recovery of the body, ransom-call recordings and Section 27 recoveries — the Division Bench held that “the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances”. It also held that the trial court could not have ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
A five-year-old boy went missing in Kandivali on 26 August 2012. His father received ransom demands, and the child’s body was later found following a disclosure statement attributed to the appellant. The post-mortem attributed death to head injuries. The appellant was charged under Sections 363, 364-A, 302, 201 read with 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
On 5 May 2018 the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Dindoshi) convicted him under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC, sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 363, life imprisonment under Section 302 and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201, with fines, and directed the sentences to run consecutively. He appealed. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the prosecution prove a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the appellant’s guilt, and could the trial court order the sentences to run consecutively?
Every link of the chain, examined
Writing for the Bench, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat found the homicidal death established but little else. The key last-seen witness was disbelieved: his statement was recorded about fifteen days late, carried material omissions, and the Court called him a “got up witness”; the other last-seen witness had himself been a suspect and his call records were not produced. Holding that a conviction cannot rest solely on the last-seen theory, the Court also found motive unproved, since the father’s account of the ransom calls had omissions and the voice-sample report was not on record. Recovery of the body was doubtful: the panch witness was a “regular stock panch”, the investigating officer admitted the location was already disclosed by the complainant, and the appellant had been seen handcuffed.
The electronic evidence failed the tests laid down in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh and R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 09 SC CK 0057, as voice identity and accuracy of the recording were not established. Clothes, mobile phone and SIM recovered under Section 27 were not corroborated by call records, nodal officer evidence or Section 65B certificates, and relying on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 09 SC CK 0079 and Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, (2026) 03 SC CK 1405 the Court refused to treat them as incriminating. Chemical analysis and DNA results were inconclusive. Applying Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 07 SC CK 0007, and noting that “Suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof”, the Court found no evidence of kidnapping or of causing disappearance of evidence either. On sentence, relying on O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2014) 11 SC CK 0051, it held that the trial court could not have directed the sentences to run consecutively.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appeal was allowed and the convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 363 and 201 IPC were quashed; the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
- The last-seen evidence, motive, recovery of the body, electronic evidence and Section 27 recoveries were each found unproven or unreliable.
- The trial court’s direction that the sentences run consecutively was held to be illegal.
- The appellant is to be released if not required in another case, after executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 under Section 481 BNSS for appearance if an appeal against acquittal is filed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms that in circumstantial cases every link must be proved, however grave the crime.
- It shows how stock panch witnesses, delayed statements and missing Section 65B certificates can unravel a prosecution.
- It restates that a life sentence cannot be ordered to run consecutively with other sentences in the same trial.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Public
- Courts can convict only on proof, not on suspicion, even in the most distressing crimes.
- Poor investigation can lead to acquittal years later, leaving victims’ families without closure.
- An accused acquitted on appeal must still furnish a bond so that he can be produced if the State appeals.
For Counsel
- Test last-seen witnesses for delay in recording statements and for omissions.
- Challenge recordings and mobile evidence lacking voice identification or Section 65B certificates.
- Rely on O.M. Cherian against consecutive running of a life sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Conviction cannot rest solely on the last-seen theory.
- Recovery through a stock panch, when the location was already known, is of doubtful value.
- Electronic evidence needs proper voice identification and Section 65B compliance.
- Sentences in this case could not lawfully have been ordered to run consecutively with life imprisonment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the accused acquitted despite the child’s body being recovered?
The Court found the recovery doubtful because the panch was a regular stock panch, the location had already been disclosed by the complainant, and the appellant was seen handcuffed. Other links in the chain, such as last seen, motive and electronic evidence, were also not proved.
What is a ‘stock panch’?
A panch witness who regularly appears for the police in many cases. Courts treat such witnesses with caution, as the High Court did here.
Can a life sentence run consecutively with other sentences?
In this case the Bombay High Court, relying on O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, held that the trial court could not have directed the sentences to run consecutively.
Conclusion
The acquittal, nearly fourteen years after the child went missing, is a stark reminder that the quality of investigation decides the outcome of serious criminal cases. Where witnesses are unreliable and electronic evidence is not properly proved, courts must acquit, however grave the offence.
Practical takeaway: In appeals against conviction on circumstantial evidence, scrutinise each link separately — witness delay, panch independence, Section 65B compliance and forensic results — and check whether the sentencing order lawfully directs concurrent or consecutive sentences.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com