Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
Shantilal Dashrath Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2025, Interim Application Nos. 695, 697 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Gharte
For the Respondent: Vinod Chate

Acquittal upheld in body-less murder case: CCTV inadmissible sans 65B certificate; unsigned/retracted confessions involuntary; no TIP; incomplete circumstantial chain with reasonable doubt from investigation lapses.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 302 and 201 - Kidnapping from lawful guardianship, murder, causing disappearance of evidence - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 5(l)(m), 6, 9(l)(m), 10 - Circumstantial evidence case without recovery of body - CCTV photographs inadmissible without Section 65B certificate (Evidence Act); no identification parade despite unknown accused; retracted confessions under CrPC Section 164 defective (one unsigned, police pressure, delay); last seen witnesses surfaced post-initial investigation failure; incomplete chain of circumstances permitting reasonable doubt - Conviction and life sentence set aside; acquittal. (Paras 24 to 34)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Electronic records (CCTV screenshots) inadmissible absent certificate and proper proof, even if objection belated in completed trials pre-2014; inherent defect fatal in serious offences ensuring fair trial. (Paras 27 to 28)

(C) CrPC, 1973 - Section 164 - Confessions must bear accused signature (mandatory); non-compliance vitiates reliability; indicators like police custody manipulation, delay post-disclosure, retraction signal involuntariness. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
Victim aged about 1 year 10 months went missing from birthday event near residence; initial accused abandoned crying child at railway station platform per CCTV; police naik saw unknown person in red shirt claim and take child; appellant scrap collector arrested post-writ petition directing probe; initially claimed handover to another, later confessed rape-murder under intoxication at temple premises near river, body disposal; no recovery; wrong child initially identified, DNA mismatch; trial convicted relying on confessions, last seen, inadmissible photos.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to prove kidnapping, murder beyond doubt; evidence stage-managed post-court intervention; appellant acquitted.

Issues: Admissibility and proof of CCTV evidence linking appellant to victim; voluntariness and reliability of dual confessions; sufficiency of last seen theory sans corpus delicti, identification safeguards; completeness of circumstantial chain.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction impermissible on circumstantial evidence unless chain unerringly points to guilt excluding hypotheses; inadmissible electronic evidence, defective unsigned confessions under pressure, absent TIP, unreliable post-facto witnesses break chain creating doubt; proper investigation imperative including CCTV chain from kidnapping site.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment quashed; appellant acquitted and released forthwith.

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction under ipc sections 363, 302, 201. (Para 1 , 2)
2. child kidnapped from birthday, abandoned at railway platform. (Para 3 , 4)
3. initial arrests fail; habeas corpus directs deeper probe. (Para 5 , 6)
4. appellant arrested; false victim identified via dna mismatch. (Para 7)
5. appellant confesses to rape, murder under intoxication. (Para 8)
6. charges framed; trial convicts appellant on confessions. (Para 9 , 10)
7. parents, pw3 testify to kidnapping at platform. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
8. math witnesses last see appellant with child. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
9. disclosure leads to spot; investigation steps detailed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
10. magistrates record contradictory confessions. (Para 20)
11. defence: faulty evidence, inadmissible photos, coerced confessions. (Para 21)
12. prosecution: last seen, identifications, reliable confessions suffice. (Para 22)
13. kidnapping unproved; missing cctv chain breaks. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
14. photos inadmissible sans section 65-b certificate. (Para 27 , 28)
15. no tip; pw3 identification unreliable. (Para 29)
16. confessions involuntary, unsigned, procedurally flawed. (Para 30)
17. witnesses unreliable post-investigation failure. (Para 31 , 32)
18. acquittal: prosecution fails reasonable doubt test. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

1. Challenge in this Appeal is to a Judgment and Order dated 9^th July 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), at Thane in Special (P) Case No.231 of 2016, thereby, the Appellant/Original Accused No.3 is convicted under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under :-

Under Section 363 of IPC, Appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. However, the Appellant was acquitted of the remaining charges framed against him.

2. Heard Mr. Gharte, learned Advocate for the Appellant appointed by Legal Aid and learned APP Mr. Chate for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. The facts of the case in hand are intriguing and therefore stating it in detail is necessary.

4. The informant “P” (PW.1) was wife of “NP” (PW.2). The victim girl ‘M’ aged about 1 year 10 months was their biological daughter. Their family used to reside at GL Colony, Manpada, Thane. About one year prior to the incident A-1 Shankar Jagdev Singh used to do waterproofing work in the society of PW.1. On 20.08.2013, at about 6:00 p.m., the victim was playing in front of her house where birthday programme of neighbouring child – s/o Shravankumar was organised. At about 7:00 p.m., the victim went missing. A search was made for the victim; however, she could not be found. Upon enquiry with the neighbour Prakash Mishra, he revealed that A-1 was playing with the victim at the birthday venue. Search was made in the house of A-1 but the victim and A-1 both were not found there. Therefore, PW.1 filed the complaint (Exh.21) which came to be registered with Kasarwadavli police station under Section 363 of IPC against the A-1.

4.1 On 21.08.2013 and 22.08.2013, API Lokare (PW.7) conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. It revealed that when the victim went missing, A-2 Jahid-Ur-Rehman Shaikh was present with A-1. On 23.08.2013, A-1 was arrested. During further investigation, it transpired that A-1 had kidnapped the victim from the birthday venue and handed over to A-2 who took her to Thane Railway Station and abandoned at Platform No.10, there.

4.2 The CCTV footage of the Platform No.10 provided by the RPF Thane Railway Station discovered that after the victim was abandoned by A-2 at Platform No.10, an unknown person (Appellant) came there and took her in his custody. At that time, Rakesh Dhudaku Pawar, (PW.3) then Police Naik, was pr