The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Jharkhand High Court judgment, restoring the murder conviction and life sentence of two men for setting a house on fire, which resulted in the tragic death of two young children. The Court held that a witness’s reaction to a gruesome incident cannot be judged by a uniform standard, and the High Court erred in disbelieving the parents’ testimony based on their “unnatural” conduct of fleeing to save their own lives before their children.
In a judgment delivered by a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand against the acquittal of Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari. However, the court upheld the acquittal of a third accused, Dhanushdhari Ganjhu, accepting his plea of alibi.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on the intervening night of April 1st and 2nd, 1992. The informant, Santosh Kumar Singh (PW1), who worked as a bus agent in Khunti, was sleeping in his room with his wife, Madhuri Devi (PW5), and their two young daughters. At about 1:45 a.m., they were awoken by the sound of a bomb blast and found their house engulfed in flames.
According to the fardbayan (initial report), the couple managed to escape through a back door, but their two minor daughters were trapped inside and died in the fire. As they fled, the informant claimed to have seen the accused—Nilu Ganjhu, Mahboob Ansari, Anil Ganjhu, and one unknown person—fleeing the scene in the electric light.
The informant stated that the attack was motivated by a business rivalry. About 15 days prior to the incident, Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari had threatened him, demanding he stop working as a bus agent because he was an “outsider.” He was also allegedly assaulted.
The trial court, the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Khunti, found the accused guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 436 (mischief by fire with intent to destroy house) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, the High Court of Jharkhand overturned the conviction, acquitting the accused. It found several improbabilities in the prosecution’s story, such as the absence of bomb residue at the scene and the “unnatural” behaviour of the parents fleeing without their children. The High Court also noted the non-examination of independent witnesses.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The State of Jharkhand argued that the prosecution had successfully established both motive and opportunity. It was contended that the informant had named the accused in his report recorded just hours after the incident and had identified them fleeing the scene. The State maintained that the ocular testimonies were consistent and credible.
The respondents (accused) argued that the High Court’s acquittal was justified. They submitted that it was highly improbable for the informant to have noticed the accused fleeing in the dark amidst the smoke and chaos. They questioned the informant’s natural reaction, suggesting he would have first tried to save his children. One of the accused, Dhanushdhari Ganjhu, took a specific plea of alibi, claiming he was admitted to a nursing home at the time of the incident.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments for each accused separately.
Acquittal of Dhanushdhari Ganjhu Upheld:
The Court accepted the alibi of Dhanushdhari Ganjhu. It noted that documentary evidence, including an admission card and a discharge certificate, proved he was admitted to Madhuri Nursing Home from March 31, 1992, to April 8, 1992, for a hydrocele surgery. This was corroborated by the testimony of the doctor (DW1), who confirmed the accused was a patient. The Court observed that the nursing home was 38 km from the place of the incident, making it “practically impossible” for the accused to have been present. The bench concluded that the trial court had committed a “gross error” in not accepting this defence and upheld the High Court’s acquittal in his case.
Acquittal of Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari Reversed:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had “wholly erred in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective” regarding the other accused.
The bench held that the High Court was wrong to treat the case as one based only on circumstantial evidence. It pointed out that the informant (PW1) was an eyewitness who saw the accused fleeing the spot and identified them.
On the High Court’s observation that no bomb residue was found, the Supreme Court clarified: “it is the case of the prosecution that the house was subjected to fire due to explosion. The informant though states it was a bomb, the material in the form of evidence brought before the court clearly show that it was some explosive substance which may not be as sophisticated as a bomb but an explosive substance causing a fire.”
The most critical part of the judgment dealt with the High Court’s doubt regarding the parents’ conduct. The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this reasoning, stating, “the High Court ought not have drawn this general inference about the conduct of these witnesses. It has been observed by this Court that there cannot be a set formula about the reaction of a witness.”
Citing its previous decision in Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Another v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the bench reiterated:
“different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene… There cannot be uniformity in human reaction.”
The Court concluded that the High Court should not have deemed the testimony of the parents (PW1 and PW5) unbelievable merely because they came out of the house to save their own lives. Finding their evidence to be confidence-inspiring, the Supreme Court held that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused.
Consequently, the appeal against Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment acquitting them was set aside. The trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was restored. The two have been directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. (The third accused, Anil Ganjhu, had passed away during the pendency of the appeal).
