Voice ID, Recovery of Body and Bloodstained Clothes Complete Chain of Circumstances: Gujarat High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Child Kidnapping and Murder Case

Circumstantial Evidence Can Sustain Conviction When Chain Is Complete: - Gujarat High Court upheld the life imprisonment awarded to Hirenbhai Patel for kidnapping and murdering an 8-year-old boy for ransom. A Division Bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and Sandeep N. Bhatt ruled that the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was valid, as “each of the circumstances have been proved and, when put together, form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.”

The appellant had challenged his conviction under Sections 302, 364A, 363 and 201 IPC by the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The High Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the sentence.

“Motive, Call for Ransom, Voice Recognition, Recovery of Dead Body and Blood Evidence Form Complete Chain”

The case involved the kidnapping of an 8-year-old boy, Shrey, on July 5, 2010, by his neighbor Hirenbhai Patel, who demanded ₹10 lakh ransom from the child’s father Jignesh Patel. When the demand went unmet, Hiren murdered the boy by strangulation and buried the body in a plastic barrel in his farmyard.

The High Court laid out the circumstantial links:

“(i) The child was last seen buying sweets and pepsi from a shop near the house of the accused.
(ii) The ransom call was made by the accused using a village STD booth and was recognized by the father.
(iii) The accused showed police the spot where the child’s body was buried.
(iv) Bloodstained clothes found at the accused’s house matched the victim’s blood.
(v) A witness saw the accused carrying a tin barrel to the yard where the body was later found.”

The Court held that these facts, taken cumulatively, left “no room for any other inference except that the accused committed the offence.”

“Identification by Voice Is Reliable When Parties Are Neighbours and Known”: Court Cites SC Rulings

The father of the deceased testified that he recognized the caller’s voice as that of his neighbor Hiren. Though no voice spectrography was conducted, the Court held that such scientific proof is not mandatory when the identification is credible:

“The complainant and the accused were known to each other. It is entirely natural that the father identified the accused’s voice. The Supreme Court has held that voice identification is reliable when based on prior familiarity.”

The Bench cited Dola Gobinda Pradhan v. State of Odisha (2018) and Mohansingh v. State of Punjab (2011) in support.

“Discovery and Recovery at Accused’s Instance Carry Evidentiary Value”: Police and Panch Testimonies Found Credible

The High Court gave significant weight to the testimony of panch witnesses and investigating officers who corroborated the discovery of the child’s body at the accused’s instance.

“In the presence of independent witnesses, the appellant led police to the water tank in his yard where the child’s body was recovered. The clothes seized from his house were bloodstained and gave off a foul smell.”

The Court found no reason to doubt these procedural steps, especially since the accused offered no plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC.

“Use of Salt, Concealment, and Absence of Alibi Reinforce Guilt”: Behaviour Consistent With Murder

The accused was seen purchasing 15 kg of salt and carrying a drum on his scooter. A laborer (PW-11) saw him digging near the yard. Though defense questioned her credibility, the Court found the testimony consistent and believable.

“Even if part of her testimony was not in the police statement, it does not falsify the rest of the evidence, especially in light of medical and forensic findings.”

Upholding the trial court’s finding, the Gujarat High Court emphasized that while the prosecution’s case was circumstantial, it met the stringent standard laid down by the Supreme Court. The cumulative effect of evidence—including voice recognition, recovery of the body, medical testimony, and forensic links—formed an unbroken chain of guilt.

Justice Ilesh J. Vora concluded: “The proved facts are capable of giving rise to inference of guilt. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence, and no interference is warranted.”

Date of Decision: April 15, 2025