Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Terms For Two Men Convicted Of Killing Woman They Branded A Witch

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the deceased’s murder, notwithstanding the alleged delay in reporting and the non-examination of the investigating officer and non-recovery of the weapon.

The court held

The High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the appellants’ convictions and sentences.

It also directed

It cancelled Etwa Munda’s bail bond and directed him to surrender before the trial court to serve the remainder of his sentence, with further steps to be taken in accordance with law if he failed to surrender.

01Facts

The appeals challenged the appellants’ convictions in Sessions Trial Case No. 71 of 2016 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001.

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that, on 23 July 2015, the appellants—who had branded the deceased a witch—attacked and killed her with a sharp weapon.

p. 2

The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed fines for the murder offence, as well as terms of imprisonment and fines under the Witchcraft Act.

p. 2

The appellants appealed, raising, among other grounds, delay in reporting, non-examination of the investigating officer, non-recovery of the weapon, and intoxication.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the deceased’s murder, notwithstanding the alleged delay in reporting and the non-examination of the investigating officer and non-recovery of the weapon.

pp. 4, 6–7

ii.2. Whether the eyewitness evidence was reliable despite the witnesses’ relationship to the deceased, and whether the alleged intoxication affected the appellants’ criminal liability.

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

The Court considered the appellants’ convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC, concerning murder committed with common intention, and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001.

p. 2, 4

It applied the principles that relatedness alone does not discredit an eyewitness, that non-recovery of a weapon or non-examination of the investigating officer is not necessarily fatal where reliable direct evidence establishes the offence, and that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to murder.

pp. 6–7

The judgment cites no precedents.

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161

04Reasoning

The Court found the delay between the evening occurrence and the report the following morning adequately explained by heavy rain.

p. 4

The post-mortem evidence established that the deceased died from multiple ante-mortem incised wounds caused by a heavy, sharp-cutting weapon, including injuries to the head and neck.

pp. 4–5

It accepted the accounts of three eyewitnesses, including PW-2 and PW-3, as consistent with each other and the medical evidence, and found no basis to conclude that they had falsely implicated the appellants merely because they were related to the deceased.

pp. 5–6

The Court held that the investigating officer’s non-examination, the weapon’s non-recovery, and the absence of forensic testing of the bloodstained soil did not undermine the direct evidence; it also rejected the intoxication plea.

pp. 6–7