In a dramatic turn in a case dating back nearly four decades, the Supreme Court on Monday acquitted ten men convicted in a 1988 double murder from Bihar’s Katihar district. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan found “serious inconsistencies” in the investigation and ruled that the first information report (FIR) in the case was unreliable.
“The statement of the injured witness treated as an FIR fails to inspire confidence,” the bench remarked, while ordering that the convictions be set aside.
Background
The case arose from a violent clash on November 20, 1988, in Ajam Nagar, Katihar, over a patch of disputed agricultural land. Two persons—Meghu Mahto and Sarjug Mahto-were killed, and five others injured. The prosecution alleged that a group of 24 men, armed with traditional weapons, attacked the victims to take possession of the land.
Following investigation, 21 were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder committed by an unlawful assembly. The Patna High Court in 2013 upheld the conviction of 12, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court by ten surviving convicts.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court closely examined whether the evidence established a common object among the accused to commit murder—an essential element under Section 149 of the IPC. Justice Pardiwala, writing for the bench, noted that while group presence was proved, “mere presence in a mob cannot be treated as proof of participation.”
The Court emphasized that rural factional fights often attract curious bystanders and warned that “the easy tendency to implicate as many people as possible” must be carefully checked. Citing precedents like Mizaji v. State of U.P. and Masalti v. State of U.P., the bench reiterated that collective liability under Section 149 requires clear proof of intent or knowledge.
The judges also found troubling contradictions between the oral testimonies and medical evidence. “When medical evidence rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true, the latter may lose credibility,” the judgment observed.
On the handling of the FIR, the Court was scathing. It noted delays in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate and inconsistencies about when the police first received information. “In the natural course, the first statement made to police should have been treated as the FIR,” the bench said, finding that the actual FIR was “ante-timed and prepared after deliberations.”
Decision
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court acquitted all ten appellants. “It would be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation,” the bench said.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Patna High Court and the conviction orders of the trial court were set aside. “The appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged,” the order read.
With this, a legal battle that began in 1988 over a one-acre land dispute finally came to an end - 37 years later - with the Supreme Court clearing the last of the accused.
Case: Zainul & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1192
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187–1188 of 2014
Date of Judgment: October 2025
