Mumbai, October 31, 2026: 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, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime.
Observing that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof”, the court set aside his conviction, noting that no material on record directly connected him to the child’s death.
A bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsat allowed the appeal filed by Manishprasad Gaud, who had been convicted by a Dindoshi Sessions Court in May 2018 on charges of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence under the IPC.
Child Went Missing In Kandivali
In August 2012, a five-year-old boy went missing from Kandivali. His decomposed body was found a few days later. Gaud was subsequently arrested and convicted, with the trial court sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for the other offences, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Gaud challenged his sentence before the High Court through advocate Prashant Pandey.
Court Finds Shortcomings In Evidence
While acknowledging that the child had died a homicidal death, the High Court found serious shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence. Examining the last-seen theory, the bench declined to rely on key witness testimonies, pointing to unexplained delays in recording their statements, material omissions and questions about their credibility.
The court also found the electronic evidence and alleged ransom calls unreliable. It noted that the mobile phone recordings and ransom-call evidence were not accompanied by the mandatory certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The voice-expert report, meanwhile, did not support the prosecution’s case against Gaud.
The bench also expressed reservations about the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the child’s body and the reliability of the police panchnama witnesses.
High Court Orders Immediate Release
“The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances which would unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused,” the bench observed.
It further said that evidence must be assessed on the basis of its probabilities, intrinsic worth and the credibility of witnesses, reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.
Also Watch:
Setting aside the May 2018 judgment, the High Court ordered Gaud’s release from custody forthwith, unless required in any other case, subject to his executing a personal recognisance bond of ₹50,000.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
