Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Term For Man Who Beat Woman To Death Over Witchcraft Allegation, Despite Daughter’s Land-Dispute Account

In brief

The question

1. Whether the testimony of PW-3 and PW-9, considered alongside the medical evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the deceased’s death

The court held

The High Court held that the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had correctly convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed

01Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder

p. 1

The prosecution alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a stick after accusing her of witchcraft; the informant, PW-9, later attributed the incident to a land dispute, while PW-3 testified that he witnessed the assault

pp. 2–3, 5–6

The post-mortem evidence recorded multiple antemortem injuries and attributed death to brain injury

p. 5

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that inconsistencies and the non-examination of other alleged eyewitnesses undermined the prosecution case

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the testimony of PW-3 and PW-9, considered alongside the medical evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the deceased’s death

pp. 5–8

ii.2. Whether the discrepancy between the alleged motive stated in the fardbeyan and the informant’s testimony, together with the failure to examine other persons said to be present, created reasonable doubt

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

Section 302 IPC criminalises murder, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act were the statutory provisions under which the appellant was convicted

p. 1, 3

In assessing witness evidence, State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, recognises that ordinary discrepancies may occur even in honest testimony

p. 7

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, holds that minor contradictions, omissions, embellishments, or improvements that do not affect the core of the prosecution case are not, by themselves, grounds to reject a witness’s evidence in its entirety

pp. 7–8

The Court also applied the principle that the quality, rather than the quantity, of witnesses is determinative

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949 Section 3 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court accepted PW-3 as an eyewitness, finding his account that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a stick consistent with the medical evidence of injuries caused by a hard and blunt object

pp. 5–7

PW-9’s identification of the appellant and account of the assault were also accepted; her differing explanation of the motive was treated as a discrepancy that did not undermine the central account of the assault, particularly as PW-3 supported the witchcraft-related allegation

pp. 6–7

The Court found the witnesses’ accounts consistent as to the assault at the Akhara and considered the appellant’s alleged threats a plausible explanation for other persons not coming forward to testify

pp. 7–8

It therefore found no sufficient basis to reject the prosecution evidence or disturb the trial court’s findings

pp. 8–9