NIMAI GHOSH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1932 · Decided: 23-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1932 : 2025 INSC 816
Nimai Ghosh & Ors. 
v. 
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
(Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2013)
23 January 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The instant criminal appeal assails the findings recorded by the 
High Court, thereby convicting the appellants herein u/s.302/34 of 
IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Whether the findings recorded 
by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is 
sustainable.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27 – P.S. Case 
No. 127/89 was registered on 09.07.1989 arraying six persons 
as accused for committing murder of father of the informant 
(PW-8) – The Trial Court acquitted all the six persons, inter-alia, 
holding that testimonies of the witnesses cannot be believed – 
In appeal, the High Court sustained acquittal qua three accused 
persons, however, the other three accused-appellant herein 
were convicted for the offences as charged – Correctness:
Held: 1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, 
in considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably 
failed to prove the allegations of the commission of murder by the 
appellants – Therefore, the findings as recorded by the High Court 
are not based on due appreciation of records but on misreading 
of evidence which cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside – 
Accordingly, the impugned judgment stands set aside – The order 
of the Trial Court stands restored. [Para 24]
2. The normal conduct of the son (PW-8) and other two nephews 
(PW-5 and PW-8) should have been to immediately report the 
incident to the nearest police station, however, in the present 
case no information was furnished by them for approximately 14 
hours – All the eyewitnesses left the place of the occurrence after 
some time and later came back without intimating the other family 
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
1933
Nimai Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
members and villagers – The conduct raises serious questions, 
especially considering that PW–8, a key eyewitness, allegedly 
witnessed the brutal murder of his own father – Given these 
circumstances, it is perplexing and surprising as to why he refrained 
from reporting the incident immediately and bringing the deceased 
to the nearest hospital – Such inaction undermines the credibility of 
the prosecution’s narrative, as any reasonable person faced with 
the murder of a close family member would typically inform the 
police without delay – This kind of passive conduct runs contrary 
with the natural behavior expected of a prudent person in such 
grave and distressing circumstances. [Paras 9, 23]
3. All the three eyewitnesses (PW-8, PW-2, PW-5) are unable 
to say who were the chance witnesses at the time of incident 
and saw the commission of crime by the accused persons – It 
is pertinent here to mention that in the present case, neither the 
pistol nor the knife was recovered or seized – The testimony of 
first investigating officer (PW–11), wherein he has deposed that 
information was received through telephonic message, however in 
the cross-examination of second investigating officer (PW–10) to 
whom investigation was later carried forward to, he has specifically 
mentioned that no telephone was installed in the police station – 
Also, the witnesses’ testimony remains completely silent on why 
the deceased’s body was not taken to the nearest hospital and 
why it was kept at the site overnight – In view of the foregoing 
facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of the 
commission of murder by the appellants. [Paras 20-24]
Evidence – Unnatural beaviour of witness – Discussed. 
[Paras 10-15]
Evidence – Eye-witnesses – Quality of evidence – Conduct 
of witness:
Held: As a general rule, to prove the case of the prosecution, the 
testimony of eyewitness primarily ought to be considered and be 
relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused – It is trite to say that 
the testimony of the eyewitness must be trustworthy, free from any 
kind of blemish and of sterling character to prove the incident, 
whereby the case of the prosecution may be proved beyond 
reasonable doubt – It is also settled that the quality of evidence 
brought to prove the guilt is a relevant factor and not the quality 
of the witnesses – The testimony of those witnesses either proves 
1934
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the case as alleged by the prosecution or ot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.