Summary and Analysis of The State of Bihar Now Jharkhand vs Nilu Ganjhu & Ors (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3381-3382 of 2025)
1. Heading of the Judgment
The State of Bihar Now Jharkhand vs Nilu Ganjhu @ Nilkant Ram Ganjhu & Anr.
(Along with Connected Criminal Appeal)
Citation:
(2025) INSC 942 (Non-Reportable)
2. Relevant Laws and Sections
The case involves the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Section 307: Attempt to murder.
Section 436: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.
Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
3. Basic Case Details
Parties Involved:
Appellant: State of Jharkhand (originally Bihar).
Respondents:
Nilu Ganjhu (Accused No. 1)
Mahboob Ansari (Accused No. 2)
Anil Ganjhu (deceased during appeal)
Dhanushdhari Ganjhu (Acquitted by Supreme Court).
Background:
Incident Date: Intervening night of April 1–2, 1992.
Allegation: Respondents set fire to the informant’s house using explosives, killing his two infant daughters (aged 3 years and 6 months).
Motive: Prior enmity as the informant (a bus agent) was threatened by respondents for being an "outsider" in Khunti, Bihar.
Trial Court (1994): Convicted all accused under Sections 302/34 and 436/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
High Court (2023): Acquitted all accused, citing lack of evidence.
Supreme Court Appeal: State challenged the acquittal.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Key Issues Decided:
Alibi of Dhanushdhari Ganjhu:
He claimed he was admitted to Madhuri Nursing Home (38 km away) from March 31 to April 8, 1992.
Evidence: Hospital admission/discharge records and testimony of Dr. Sinha (DW-1) confirmed his presence at the hospital during the incident.
Supreme Court's View: Alibi was conclusively proven. The Trial Court erred in convicting him. Acquittal upheld (Criminal Appeal No. 3381 dismissed).Conviction of Nilu Ganjhu & Mahboob Ansari:
Eyewitness Testimony:
Informant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-5) saw the accused fleeing the scene under electric light.
Both suffered burn injuries while trying to save their children.
Prosecution Evidence:
Motive established (prior threats to informant).
Consistent testimonies of injured eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-5) and relatives (PW-3, PW-6, PW-8).
Medical evidence (PW-4) confirmed deaths due to burns.
High Court’s Errors:
Wrongly treated case as circumstantial: Ignored direct eyewitness accounts.
Doubted parents' conduct: Criticized PW-1/PW-5 for escaping without children. Supreme Court held human reactions vary under trauma (Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra cited).
"Bomb" vs. "Explosive Substance": High Court fixated on absence of "bomb residue," but evidence proved use of some explosive substance causing fire.
Supreme Court's View: Trial Court’s conviction was valid. Acquittal reversed for Nilu and Mahboob (Criminal Appeal No. 3382 allowed).
Final Outcome:
Dhanushdhari Ganjhu: Acquittal confirmed.
Nilu Ganjhu & Mahboob Ansari: Conviction restored. Directed to surrender within 2 weeks.
Anil Ganjhu: Appeal abated due to death.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed:
Eyewitness Credibility: Related witnesses (e.g., victims’ family) are reliable if testimonies are consistent.
Human Conduct in Trauma: No "standard reaction" for witnesses (Lahu Kamlakar Patil).
FIR as a "Starter": FIR need not detail every fact; its purpose is to set investigation in motion.
Summary:
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal of Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari, restoring their conviction for murder and arson. It upheld the acquittal of Dhanushdhari Ganjhu due to a proven alibi. The judgment emphasizes that eyewitness testimonies—especially from victims—cannot be discarded for minor discrepancies, and human reactions under extreme trauma vary.
Blog Posts
