Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal Of Men Accused Of Killing 2 Baby Girls
The Supreme Court has reversed the acquittal of two men who were accused of killing two baby girls while they were asleep at night.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals preferred by the State, challenging the Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which quashed the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice prasanna b. varale observed, “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.”
The Bench reiterated that there cannot be a set formula about the reaction of a witness.
Advocate/Standing Counsel Pragyya Baghel appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Aor subhro sanyal and Advocate jayesh gaurav appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, the informant was doing work of bus agency at a bus stand for two years prior to the incident. He was a bus agent and about 15 days prior to the occurrence, the Respondents-accused had allegedly threatened him by saying that they would not allow him to do the work of the bus agency as he was an outsider. It was further alleged that the informant told the accused persons to ask the bus owners for that purpose and if they would tell him not to do the work, he would leave the same but not on being asked by them. Allegedly, first accused caught hold of his arm and assaulted him, with silane. After one or two days, the second accused had allegedly caught hold of his collar and 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 allegedly threatened to be shooted or bombed. Further, in between the night of April 1 and 2, 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.
The informant’s wife also got up and heard the sound and they found fire in the entire house. Anyhow they came out of the room from the back door but the minor daughters 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. It was also alleged that as soon as the informant and his wife rushed out of the room, they saw four persons including the Respondents and one unknown person fleeing away towards east through southern lane of the house. Resultantly, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 436, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, on an Appeal by the accused persons, the High Court quashed their conviction. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, remarked, “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.”
The Court said that 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”it added.
The Court further noted that the High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the witnesses observing that the mother and father would not have left the room leaving their children on hearing the explosion.
“The High Court thus raises a serious doubt on the conduct of the witnesses namely PW1 and his wife PW5. In our opinion, the High Court ought not have drawn this general inference about the conduct of these witnesses”it also observed.
Conclusion
Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the accused persons, the Court was of the view that 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”it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal against two, quashed the High Court’s Judgment, affirmed that of the Trial Court, and directed the accused persons to surrender within two weeks.
Chived Title- The Messiah’s Angel Ovast. Ninlu Ganjhu @ Nilkan Ram Gnjhu & Wan. (Citarian Number: 2025 INSC 942)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate/standing counter Pragya Baghel, Aors Tulika Mukherjee, Anando Mukherjee, Advocates Beenu Sharma, and Venkat Narayan.
Respondents: Aors Subhro Sanyal, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Advocates Jayesh Gaurav, Diksha Ojha, and Ishwar Chandra Roy.