The Supreme Court Overturns High Court, Upholds Conviction in Tragic Double Murder Case.


06 August 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In a recent ruling of The State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand v/s Nilu Ganjhu Nilkant Ram Ganjhu & Another, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment by the High Court of Jharkhand, reinstating the conviction of two men who were previously acquitted in a case involving the tragic deaths of two infants in a house fire. The case, which dates back to an incident in 1992, centered on the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the proper application of legal principles regarding the behavior of witnesses.


The facts of the case trace back to the night of April 1-2, 1992, when a bus agent and his wife awoke to an explosion and fire in their home. While they managed to escape through a back door, their two young daughters, aged three years and six months, perished in the blaze. The informant, the father, stated in his police report that he had been threatened by three men—Nilu Ganjhu, Mahboob Ansari, and Anil Ganjhu—15 days prior due to a business dispute. He claimed that as he and his wife fled the burning house, they saw these three men and a fourth unknown person laughing and fleeing the scene in the electric light.


   

The trial court, after considering the evidence, found the three named accused persons guilty of murder, attempted murder, and arson, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, the High Court subsequently acquitted all of them, citing several inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case. The High Court's reasoning included the lack of bomb remains at the scene, the "unnatural" behavior of the parents who fled the room without their children, and the absence of independent witnesses. The State of Jharkhand challenged this acquittal in the Supreme Court, which delivered a detailed judgment.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning on several key points:

Eyewitness Testimony: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in treating the case as one based purely on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the informant and his wife were direct eyewitnesses to the incident, not just to the fleeing assailants, and their testimony was crucial. The Court also affirmed that a witness's credibility is not diminished by their relationship to the victim.
Conduct of Witnesses: The Court strongly disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that the parents' conduct was "unnatural." Citing its own precedent in Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no fixed, predictable way for a person to react to a traumatic event. It stressed that some people may freeze or flee in panic, and this does not automatically render their testimony unbelievable.
Nature of the Explosive: The Supreme Court also dismissed the High Court's objection regarding the absence of a "bomb." It clarified that the father's statement about a "bomb blast" should be understood in the common parlance as a description of an "explosive substance" that caused the fire, rather than a sophisticated military-grade device, and the lack of a specific type of debris did not discredit the entire case.
Alibi Defense: The Supreme Court did, however, uphold the acquittal of a fourth accused, Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu, who had been identified by the informant during a later deposition. The Court found that Dhanushdhari had successfully established an alibi, providing hospital admission and discharge documents along with a doctor's testimony to prove that he was hospitalized 38 kilometers away from the crime scene at the time of the incident.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari, affirming their convictions and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Court directed them to surrender to the trial court within two weeks. The appeal against Anil Ganjhu was dismissed as he had passed away during the pendency of the case.


Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 307., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 436., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860