In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted 21 individuals who were serving life sentences in connection with a 1988 double murder case in Bihar. The court's decision, delivered on October 7, 2025, comes 35 years after the initial conviction, highlighting critical issues related to evidence, investigation, and the application of criminal law.
The case originated from a violent clash in the Katihar district of Bihar on November 20, 1988. The incident involved a large group allegedly attacking Jagdish Mahato and his brother, Meghu Mahato, resulting in the death of Meghu and another villager named Sarjug Mahato. Five other individuals sustained injuries during the altercation. Following the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, naming 72 individuals as accused based on the statement of Jagdish Mahato.
However, the Supreme Court raised serious doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the FIR. The court noted that the police had already commenced their investigation before the FIR was officially registered, suggesting that the statement was not a spontaneous account but rather a product of deliberation and consultation. "The statement of PW-20 could not have been treated as the FIR. It appears to have been recorded after deliberations and consultations, not as the first spontaneous account," the Court held.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court found the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be legally unsustainable in this case. Section 149 deals with unlawful assembly and constructive liability, where every member of an unlawful assembly can be held guilty of an offense committed by any member of that assembly in furtherance of the common object. The Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot be based on vague collective accusations without clear evidence of individual involvement or intent. Quoting earlier precedents, the Court reminded that “the principle of constructive liability cannot be stretched to convict innocent bystanders or those merely present at the spot in the absence of any overt act or corroborated conduct”.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, composing the bench, underscored that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof". They cautioned against blanket convictions in cases of mob violence based on unreliable testimony and flawed FIRs. The Court asserted that mere presence in a mob cannot establish guilt and that an injured witness is not necessarily a truthful witness.
The Supreme Court's decision to acquit the 21 individuals reflects a commitment to upholding fundamental principles of criminal law, including the presumption of innocence, the need for credible evidence, and the importance of individual culpability. The verdict serves as a warning against the abuse of group liability and the fabrication of FIRs. It also highlights the potential for wrongful convictions, even in cases where serious crimes have been committed. This ruling reinforces the importance of ensuring fair trials and protecting the rights of the accused within the legal system.
