2. In both these appeals the appellant challenges the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr. Appeal DB No. 30/1994 allowing the appeals and quashing the judgement of the conviction dated 09.02.1994 and order of sentence dated 11.02.1994 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T No. 627/1992 registered under Section 302, 307 and 436 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter, ‘IPC’).
3. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment they have been heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. In both these appeals, the appellant challenging the order impugned is the State of Jharkhand while the respondents are the accused persons.
Brief facts
4. The present case is that of the tragic death of two baby girls who were killed while they were asleep at nighttime. As per the prosecution story, the informant was doing work of bus agency at bus stand, Khunti, for two years prior to the incident. He was a bus agent of Mohan bus, Mehta bus and Pradhan Travels. About 15 days prior to the occurrence, accused Nilu Ganjhu and Md. Mahboob Ansari had threatened him by saying that they would not allow him to do the work of the bus agency at Khunti as he was an outsider. Further, according to the fardbayan – he had told the aforesaid two accused persons to ask the bus owners for that purpose and if they would tell him not to do the work of the bus agency, he would leave the said work but he would not leave on being asked by them. On that, Nilu Ganjhu caught hold of his arm and assaulted him, with silane. After one or two days, accused Mehboob Ansari had caught hold of his collar and had threatened him that he would not spare the bus agency. In spite of that, the informant continued on the bus agency and so he was threatened to be shooted or bombed. Further, according to the fardbayan, in between the night of 1st and 2nd April 1992 at about 1:45 a.m. while the informant was sleeping along with his wife and two children inside the room, he heard the sound of bomb blasting and got up. His wife also got up and heard the sound, they found fire in the entire house. Anyhow they came out of the room from the back door but the minor daughters who were kids remained in the room and could not be saved from the fire. The entire house was on fire and the roof was falling. The two infants ultimately died burning in the fire. As soon as the informant and his wife rushed out of the room, they saw accused Nilu Ganjhu, Mahboob Ansari, Anil Ganjhu and one more unknown person fleeing away towards east through southern lane of the house. The miscreant started laughing and said to lit fire at lower chowk. All the miscreants were identified in the electric light. It is stated in the First Information Report (hereinafter ‘FIR’) itself that the fourth one could be identified if seen. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Khunti P.S. Case No.45/1992 dated 02.04.1992 was instituted for the offences under Sections 436, 307 and 302 of IPC, against the accused persons Nilu Ganjhu, Mahboob Ansari, Anil Ganjhu and others unknown and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet in the case.
Trial court held accused guilty
5. Vide order dated 09.02.1994, Ld. Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti after considering the evidence and statements of the witnesses held all the accused persons guilty for the offences under Sections 436/34 and 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years for offence under Section 436/34 of IPC and RI for life and sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo RI for 1 year more for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Hon’ble H.C allowed the appeal and held the accused not guilty
6. On appeal being preferred by the accused persons, the Hon’ble HC allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It was observed as under:
“ …….. “
7. Thus, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had not been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt and accordingly, allowed the appeal and discharged the accused from criminal liability.
State preferred t his appeal
8. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellant State is before us by way of filing appeals.
Analysis
Alibi was proved through DW.1 and hence Hon’ble High Court judgment need not be interfered
13. In so far as, the appeal wherein the accused-respondent Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu is concerned, the accused respondent denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The respondentaccused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu has taken a specific stand of alibi in his defence. It was submitted by the respondent-accused before the Trial Court that on the date of occurrence i.e. the intervening night of 1st April and 2nd April,1992, he was admitted in the hospital i.e. Madhuri Nursing Home. Admittedly, he was admitted in the hospital on 31.03.1992 and was discharged on 08.04.1992. In support of this submission heavy reliance was placed on the admitted documents before the Trial Court. The documents exhibited and admitted before the Trial Court namely, the admission card dated 31.03.1992 and the discharged certificate issued by the doctor dated 08.04.1992. These documents are also placed before this Court by way of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu dated 22nd December, 2023. The first document is the admission card issued by the medical officer attached to a private hospital namely, Madhuri Nursing Home. The pursual of this document shows that respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was examined in the hospital on 15.03.1992 and on 22.03.1992 he was advised for surgery of Hydrocile. The next important document is the certificate issued by the Medical Officer attached to Madhuri Nursing Home dated 08.04.1992. The perusal of this document shows that respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was admitted in the hospital on 31.03.1992. He was a patient occupying bed no. 2 and was operated in the hospital till his discharge on 08.04.1992 as per the certificate dated 08.04.1992. The certificate further showed that Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was again brought to the hospital on the next day i.e. 09.04.1992 and doctor suggested him certain tablets. Now in support of these documents Dr. Sinha was examined as defence witness no. 1. The copy of deposition of DW1-Dr. Sinha is also placed on record. The perusal of the testimony of Dr. Sinha shows that Dr. Sinha runs the hospital namely Madhuri Nursing Home. He further states that in his Nursing Home most of the surgical cases are undertaken by him. Then he further states in his deposition before the Court that respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu came to him for his treatment on 15.03.1992. He further states before the Court that he suggested surgery for Hydrocile to him (i.e. patient). Then he supports the contents of the documents referred earlier, that respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was admitted in his Nursing Home on 31st March, 1992 till 8th April, 1992. Dr. Sinha further admits that the discharge slip is in his handwriting and duly signed by himself. It is also important to note that Dr. Sinha stated before the Court that the distance between his Nursing Home and Khunti bus stand is nearly 38 kms. Then he identified the respondent-accused in the court and deposed before the Court that respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu is the very person who was admitted as a patient in his hospital. Though DW1-Dr. Sinha was subjected to a detailed cross-examination but the prosecution was unable to find out either any discrepancy in his version or any such material in the form of contradiction or omission and it can safely be said that this witness stood firm and fully supported the theory of alibi. As per the case of the prosecution the unfortunate incident took place in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd April, 1992. It is stated in the FIR lodged at the instance of PW 1 Santosh Kumar Singh that he is a resident of the area known as Dak Bungalow Road which is near to Khunti Police Station. It is also stated in the FIR that he is working as an agent for certain travel agents/agencies namely, Mohan bus, Mehta bus and Pradhan Travels and the bus stand was his working place. Thus, considering this aspect that the place of incident is near to Kunti Bus Stand and the respondentaccused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was admitted in the hospital namely Madhuri Nursing Home at a distance of 38 kms. from the bus stand as stated by Dr. Sinha in his deposition and no contra material was brought by the prosecution so as to raise any doubt about this factual aspect. It was practically impossible for the respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu who was admitted in the hospital and was under medical treatment to travel a distance of 38 kms. in the night and again returning back to the hospital, as such, at the cost of repetition, we state that the respondentaccused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu was successful in establishing his defence of alibi before the Trial Court. The Trial Court by not accepting this defence theory, committed a gross error in not appreciating the defence by respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu in its proper perspective, holding the respondentaccused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu guilty. Whereas the High Court was justified in accepting the theory of respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu. As such, the appeal preferred by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu recorded by the High Court being devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 3381 of 2025 against the respondent-accused Dhanushdhari Gaunjhu is dismissed.
Respondent/accused Anil Ganjhu expired
14. In so far as, the appeal against the respondents Nilu Ganjhu, Mahboob Ansari and Anil Ganjhu is concerned, during pendency of the appeal, respondent-accused Anil Ganjhu has expired. The appeal is now limited only to the extent of respondent-accused Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari.
16. It is further stated, in the testimony of PW1 Santosh Kumar Singh that on raising hue and cry by the informant the neighbours gathered at the spot. Some of them got the fire extinguished. It is stated that the police authorities were informed and, in the meantime, police also reached on the spot. Though with the help of neighbours the house fire was extinguished but unfortunately the babies could not be saved, and the dead bodies were brought out of the house. In the cross-examination PW1 Santosh Kumar Singh stood firm on the aspect that he is seen accused persons running from the spot and he had identified them in the electric lights. The version of PW1 that the house was set on fire is supported by PW2 Ashok Kumar Rai-punch witness, the articles seized under the punchanama were burnt pieces of bamboo, pieces of saree and the few pages of burnt book Ramayana.
Accused is identified by the eye-witness
18. The High Court thus committed a serious error in observing that there is no eyewitness in the present case. At the cost of repetition we may state that the informant PW1 Santosh Kumar Singh himself was an eyewitness to the incident in so far as the aspects of having explosion in the house, the house being set on fire, the informant and his wife being subjected to burn injuries, the babies in the house unfortunately died in the incident and this witness clearly stood firm on the aspect of seeing the accused persons on the spot immediately after the house was set to fire. There was also no doubt on the aspect of identity of these accused persons because PW1 was knowing these persons and he had seen them. This witness also states about the source of light at the spot namely an electric light and identified the accused-respondents. PW4 Dr. S Kumar also supports the case of the prosecution in so far as the incident of fire is concerned in the aspects namely, the house being set on fire, PW1 and his wife being subjected to burn injuries and two babies died dying due to the fire burns.
Explosive substance was proved
19. As stated above, the High Court committed a serious error in recording a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the theory of explosion of the bomb as there was no identification of the bomb nor any remains of the bomb were found on the spot. At the cost of repetition, we again state that 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.
Conduct of the witnesses in cases is explained in detail
This Court in the case of Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Another v. State of Maharashtra, has observed as under:
“26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that 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 and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, it can be said that on seeing some gruesome incident the witnesses may react in different ways. Some witnesses may become speechless, some may cry, some may leave the spot immediately due to fear and apprehension. Thus, the High Court ought not to have treated the version of these witnesses as unbelievable merely because the couple immediately came out of the house to save their lives. Hence, the evidence of witnesses PW1 and PW5 clearly inspires confidence and we see no reason to discard their evidence.
Conclusion
21. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the accused persons, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the same and rendered a reasoned judgment of conviction, holding the accused persons guilty. In our considered view, the High Court erred in reversing the said conviction by adopting an erroneous and unsustainable appreciation of evidence. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court in respect of accused persons Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari is liable to be quashed and set aside. As a result, the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the Trial Court stands affirmed. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 3382 of 2025 filed against the respondent-accused Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari is allowed.
Judgments cited
Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417.
Sections and Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
* Section 302 (Murder)
* Section 307 (Attempt to murder)
* Section 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent
to destroy house, etc.)
* Section 436/34 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with
common intention)
* Section 302/34 (Murder with common intention)
Party
The State of Bihar Now Jharkhand versus Nilu Ganjhu @ Nilkant Ram Ganjhu & Anr – Criminal Appeal No.(s) 3382 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10889 of 2023) and Criminal Appeal No.(s) 3381 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10890 of 2023) – 2025 INSC 942 – August 6, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
