SHANTILAL DASHRATH GAIKWAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Mandatory Non-compliance of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Inadmissibility of Electronic Evidence Without Section 65-B Certificate.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14256-DB
Decision Date: 25-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Admissibility of Electronic Records (Section 65-B); Recording of Confessions (Section 164)
- Facts: A girl child, aged about 1 year 10 months, went missing from a birthday venue in Thane on August 20, 2013. The prosecution alleged that A-1 and A-2 kidnapped her and abandoned her at Thane Railway Station, where the Appellant (A-3) took her into custody. After a Habeas Corpus petition was filed, the police claimed the Appellant confessed to raping and murdering the child near a "Math" in Kamshet and throwing her body into a river. However, initial investigation led to the recovery of a different girl child from one A-4, whom the parents wrongly identified as the victim until a DNA test proved she was A-4's biological daughter. The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence based on two confessional statements and "last seen" evidence.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellant challenged the Judgment and Order dated July 9, 2024, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Thane, which sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appeal was heard by the Bombay High Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction.
- Issue: Whether the conviction for murder and kidnapping can be sustained solely based on uncorroborated, retracted confessions and weak circumstantial evidence, especially when the electronic evidence (CCTV) was not legally proved and the corpus delicti was never found?
- Holding: No, the conviction cannot be sustained. The High Court quashed the Trial Court's order and acquitted the Appellant of all charges.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and "managed" by the police due to pressure from the pending Writ Petition. First, the 1st confession was inadmissible as it lacked the Appellant's signature, violating the mandatory requirements of Section 164(4) of the Cr.P.C. Second, the CCTV photographs were inadmissible as the prosecution failed to produce the original footage or a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Third, the "last seen" theory was unreliable because witnesses were shown unclear photographs rather than a Test Identification Parade (TIP). Lastly, the Court noted the lack of motive and the fact that the Appellant had initially tried to report the abandoned child to the police, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
🔒 For Members Only