Unexplained delay in lodging FIR and material testimonial contradictions vitiate conviction in witchcraft harassment cases.

The Appellant (complainant) alleged that on 08.08.2012, Respondents No. 1 and 2 (husband and wife) entered her home, abused her with filthy language, labeled her a witch (witchcraft), and threatened to kill her.

A written complaint was lodged on 26.08.2012.

The Trial Court (JMFC, Rajpur) convicted Respondent No. 1 under Section 506 Part-II IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005, and Respondent No. 2 under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act.

On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Balrampur, reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondents.

The Appellant challenged this acquittal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Whether the appellate court erred in law by reversing the conviction based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of a prior land dispute undermined the prosecution's case.

The court applied Sections 294 (Obscene acts/songs) and 506 Part-II (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

It further applied Sections 4 (Punishment for identifying a Tonahi/witch) and 5 (Punishment for harassment) of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005.

The court also relied on the evidentiary principle that material disparities in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in reporting an incident (FIR) can lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially when a pre-existing land dispute suggests potential malice.

The High Court observed that while the incident allegedly occurred on 08.08.2012, the report was not lodged until 26.08.2012, leaving a significant delay for which no valid explanation was offered.

Upon reviewing the testimonies, the Court noted material disparities between PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2 (husband); specifically, PW-1 gave contradictory statements regarding whether she visited the Superintendent of Police on 13.08.2012.

Furthermore, the record established a pre-existing land dispute between the parties, which cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a consistent timeline for the reporting of the crime, and the lack of documentary evidence regarding visits to the police authorities further weakened the case.

It held that the appellate court did not err in scanning the evidence and that the acquittal was justified due to the material contradictions and the unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.