Jharkhand High Court grants probation to 13 convicts in shocking 1999 witch-branding case after upholding convictions

The prosecution arose from an incident dated 22 March 1999 in which Perki Devi was allegedly surrounded by the appellants, called a witch, forcibly made to consume human excreta, and assaulted with lathis, fists and stones.

It was alleged that one of her teeth was broken during the assault.

The police registered Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 38 of 1999, initially under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 447 and 506 IPC, with Sections 326, 308, 325 and 354 IPC subsequently added.

Following investigation and trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 323 and 326 IPC and imposed varying terms of imprisonment and fines, with the sentences to run concurrently.

In appeal, the appellants did not challenge the conviction on merits and confined their submissions to the grant of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The State accepted that the appellants had no previous conviction or criminal antecedent.

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence on record?

Whether, having regard to the nature of the offence, the appellants’ antecedents, the passage of time and the circumstances of the case, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in lieu of substantive imprisonment?

The Court applied Sections 147, 323 and 326 IPC, concerning rioting, voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, respectively.

It also applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which permits release of an offender on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing the offender to immediate imprisonment, after considering the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender.

The Court further relied on the evidentiary principle that the credible and consistent testimony of an injured witness, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, can sustain a conviction.

The Court found that the testimony of the injured informant remained consistent during examination-in-chief and cross-examination and was corroborated by the witnesses who arrived at the scene and by the medical evidence.

The injury report showed that the injuries were generally simple, except for the partially broken tooth, and the assault involved lathis and stones.

Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court had correctly convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 323 and 326 IPC and found no error warranting interference with the conviction.

On sentence, the Court noted that the appellants had no previous conviction or criminal antecedent, the case represented their first offence, the occurrence had taken place in 1999, and they had undergone the prolonged ordeal of trial for more than two decades.

Considering the nature and manner of the offence, the appellants’ age, character and antecedents, and the overall circumstances, the Court held that it was expedient in the interests of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of requiring them to undergo substantive imprisonment.

However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were modified under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The appellants were directed to furnish a bond of ₹5,000 each with one surety of the like amount before the trial court within two months, undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

In the event of failure to furnish the bond, the trial court was directed to secure their attendance; upon breach of the bond conditions, the appellants could be required to undergo the sentences originally imposed.