Bombay HC Acquits Man Convicted of Kidnapping and Murder of 5-Year-Old, Finding Circumstantial Chain Incomplete

The prosecution alleged that five-year-old Sagar Sharma went missing on 26 August 2012 and that his father later received ransom calls.

The appellant was arrested on 30 August 2012.

The prosecution relied principally on alleged last-seen evidence, the recovery of the child’s body and other articles, the ransom-call evidence, and medical and forensic evidence.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the IPC and directed the sentences to run consecutively.

The appellant challenged the convictions, contending that the circumstantial chain was incomplete and the evidence unreliable.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, and form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the court applied the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

“Last seen” evidence alone does not ordinarily sustain a conviction, particularly where the time gap permits the possibility of intervention by another person.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only information distinctly connected with a discovery is admissible, and discovery alone does not establish that the accused committed the offence.

Electronic records must satisfy the applicable requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Section 361 IPC requires proof that the accused took or enticed a minor from the lawful guardian’s keeping without the guardian’s consent; recovery of a missing minor from a stranger’s custody does not, by itself, prove kidnapping.

A life sentence cannot be directed to run consecutively with a fixed-term sentence; the sentences must run concurrently.

The Court found the last-seen evidence unreliable: one witness delayed disclosing the alleged sighting, while the other lacked corroboration, including call records and testimony from other persons allegedly present.

The interval between the alleged sighting and recovery of the body also did not exclude the possibility of another person’s involvement.

Although the medical evidence established homicidal death, it did not identify the appellant as the perpetrator.

The body recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the complainant had already disclosed the location to police and the panch witness’s conduct raised concerns about his independence.

The ransom-call evidence did not reliably identify the caller as the appellant; the relevant voice evidence was inadequately proved, and the SIM and phone attribution lacked supporting call records and the required electronic-record certification.

The forensic results were inconclusive.

The evidence therefore failed to establish the appellant’s guilt under Sections 302 and 201 IPC or that he had taken or enticed the child within the meaning of Section 361, punishable under Section 363 IPC.

The Court also noted that consecutive sentences involving a life sentence were impermissible.

It directed his release forthwith, subject to procedural formalities and any other case, and required execution of a bond under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 437A of the CrPC.