Jharkhand High Court upholds witchcraft-related murder conviction

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the credibility of a witness’s testimony depends not on the number of witnesses but on the quality of the evidence presented.

Divisional bank comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary highlighted, “To rely or not to rely on the evidence of a witness, is the question which confronts every court while appreciating the evidence. The Evidence Act is not a pedantic document, but a pragmatic one, which does not require any number of witnesses to prove any fact (section 134).”

“The very definition of the term ‘proved’ in Section 3 is couched in its widest expression, as the word ‘matter’ has been used in its definition and not ‘evidence’. The established test is that of a “prudent man.” It is not the number of witnesses that is important, but the quality of the evidence. In a proper case, conviction may be based on the solitary testimony of a witness, if the witness is convincing, trustworthy and reliable.” added the division bench.

In the details of the case, the informant, son of the deceased, claimed in the FIR that he was absent from home during the incident. He found out in the evening that his mother was killed by his uncle, Gumid Murmu, with a sharp weapon. On arrival, he found her body on the ridge of the homestead (bari) of the appellant, who had previously referred to the deceased as a witch.

The incident was witnessed by Sonamuni Tudu, wife of the informant’s brother. An FIR was lodged under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant with a subsequent charge sheet also including charges under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witchcraft (Daain) Act, 1999. The trial court convicted the appellant under with these sections, leading to the present criminal appeal.

The Court observed that oral evidence must be assessed in the context of the surrounding circumstances.

Taking into account the particularities of the main witness, the Court noted: “PW 1 is a triable rustic lady and she was not able to speak and understand Hindi and hence her testimony was recorded by involving a person familiar with interpretation. She is the only witness named in the FIR who saw the event. She is a natural witness as she is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and the place of production was close to their back house.”

The Court also observed, “There is no past enmity that would have led her to falsely implicate the appellant. She was not confronted with her earlier statement to bring out any contradiction in her account. Other witnesses are not direct eyewitnesses of the incident, but are witnesses who arrived at the scene immediately after the occurrence. The defense has failed to impeach her credit and there is no concrete reason to disbelieve her account.”

Considering these considerations, the Court found no defects in the decision and sentence of the trial court, ultimately rejecting the criminal appeal.

Case Title: Gumid Murmu V. State of Jharkhand

Click here to read the Judgment