Five accused acquitted in alleged witch-hunting murder after prosecution failed to prove abduction and killing beyond reasonable doubt

The appellants were prosecuted for allegedly entering the deceased’s house on 23.06.2006, assaulting members of her family, abducting her on suspicion that she was a witch, and thereafter killing and burying her.

The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s husband, PW-2, on 28.06.2006, and Bijni P.S. Case No. 66/2006 was registered under Sections 147, 448, 325 and 366 IPC.

The deceased’s body was recovered from a buried spot on 29.06.2006 and subjected to post-mortem examination on 30.06.2006.

The Trial Court convicted the six accused, including the present five appellants, under Sections 302, 367, 201 and 147 IPC and imposed sentences including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

There were, however, no direct eyewitnesses to the killing, and the evidence regarding the alleged abduction, the timing and manner of recovery, and the appellants’ connection with the death was inconsistent.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants abducted the deceased and were responsible for her death, despite the absence of a reliable eyewitness and the contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 2, 4 and 6.

Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain, consistent only with the guilt of the appellants and excluding every reasonable alternative hypothesis.

Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies concerning recovery of the body, non-seizure of the alleged weapons, and non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice to the appellants and undermined the prosecution case.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 147, 302, 367 and 201 IPC, relating respectively to rioting, murder, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine, and causing disappearance of evidence.

Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, a witness’s prior statement can be used for contradiction only by confronting the Investigating Officer who recorded it; non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not ordinarily fatal, but becomes material where it causes prejudice to the accused, as held in Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317.

The Court relied on P. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 771, and Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114, for the principle that unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging an FIR may create suspicion and require close scrutiny of the prosecution case.

It applied State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, regarding the fatal effect of contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, which requires every circumstance in a circumstantial-evidence case to be fully established and the chain to be complete, consistent only with guilt and excluding every other reasonable hypothesis.

The Court also applied the principle that grave suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the prosecution established, at most, that the appellants had gone to the deceased’s house armed with weapons and had allegedly called her a witch.

It did not reliably establish that any appellant was seen taking the deceased away or was last seen with her.

PW-2 admitted that he had not seen the appellants taking the deceased, while the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 was materially inconsistent: PW-4 stated that she and PW-6 fled on seeing the armed appellants, whereas PW-6’s testimony appeared to imply that she witnessed the abduction.

Since the Investigating Officer was not examined, the appellants could not effectively confront PW-6 with the alleged omission in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, causing prejudice under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

The medical evidence proved that the deceased died from an ante-mortem lung injury but did not connect that injury to the appellants or to any weapon allegedly carried by them.

No weapon was seized, and the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain how PW-1 and PW-2 located and dug up the buried body before the police and Magistrate arrived.

The five-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, and the witnesses gave inconsistent accounts as to whether the body was recovered three or four days after the incident, contrary to the official inquest and post-mortem dates.

Consequently, the circumstances did not form the complete chain required by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and the prosecution failed to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with the appellants’ innocence.

The appeal was allowed, the Trial Court’s judgment dated 11.02.2022 in Sessions Case No. 3(B)/2018 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.

They were directed to be released from custody immediately unless required in any other case, and the Trial Court record was ordered to be returned.