Supreme Court Restores Murder Convictions for Two Accused, Upholds Acquittal of Third on Alibi

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by the State of Jharkhand challenging a High Court order that had quashed trial convictions in relation to the death of two infants in a house fire. The appeals arose from convictions recorded in 1994 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, under Sections 302, 307 and 436 IPC and the subsequent acquittal of the accused by the Jharkhand High Court in January 2023.

The Court allowed one appeal and dismissed the other, holding that the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence in respect of two accused while correctly accepting an alibi for a third. The Supreme Court affirmed that the trial court had "rightly appreciated" the oral and documentary evidence against the accused Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari and reinstated their convictions, while it dismissed the State's appeal challenging the acquittal of Dhanushdhari Ganjhu based on hospital records and medical testimony. The Court directed that Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari surrender to the trial court within two weeks. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

The prosecution case arose from the night fire in the intervening night of April 1–2, 1992, in which two baby girls died. The informant, a bus agent, alleged that he and his wife were asleep with the children when they heard an explosion, found their hutment-like house on fire and were forced to flee; they stated that they saw several persons — later identified as accused — fleeing in the electric light. The police registered Khunti P.S. Case No.45/1992 and charges followed. The trial court convicted all accused in February 1994 and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for other offences.

The High Court allowed the appeals in 2023 and quashed the convictions, citing multiple infirmities in the prosecution case: absence of remains of any bomb, improbability that parents would leave children during a fire, inconsistency in identification, failure to examine independent witnesses and timing discrepancies in the fardbeyan and police arrival. The High Court observed, for instance, that "the Investigating Officer ... has not found any identification of the bomb" and that independent local witnesses were not examined.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that motive, opportunity and eyewitness identification in electric light supported conviction, and that the circumstantial and direct evidence formed a complete chain. Defence counsel for one accused relied on documentary hospital records and the testimony of a treating doctor to establish an alibi; that accused was shown to have been admitted from March 31 to April 8, 1992, at a nursing home about 38 km from the scene. The Supreme Court found that the alibi was satisfactorily proved and dismissed the State's appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 3381 of 2025, while it found that the High Court had erred in reversing convictions for the other two accused and allowed Criminal Appeal No. 3382 of 2025. The Court also cited precedent on variability of human reaction to trauma, noting that witnesses may react differently and that such conduct did not, by itself, render testimony unreliable. Interim directions were limited to the surrender direction; no other liberties or modifications were granted.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3382 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10889 of 2023) and 3381 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10890 of 2023) Case Title: The State of Bihar now Jharkhand v. Nilu Ganjhu @ Nilkant Ram Ganjhu & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ld. Standing Counsel (for the State) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Subhro Sanyal (for respondents in SLP (Crl.) No.10889/2023); Mr. Jayesh Gaurav (for respondent in SLP (Crl.) No.10890/2023)