Quality Of Evidence Is Important; Not Number Of Witnesses: Jharkhand HC Upholds Conviction In Witch-Craft Murder Case
|The Jharkhand High Court, while upholding the conviction in a murder case, reiterated that it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of the evidence which is important in determining the credibility of the evidence.
The Court was considering an appeal against a conviction order in murder case surrounding witch-craft.
The division-bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, "To rely or not to rely on the evidence of a witness, is the question which every Court is confronted with while appreciating evidence. Evidence Act is not a pedantic, but a pragmatic document which does not mandate any number of witness required for proof of any fact (Section 134). The very definition of ‘proved’ under Section 3 is couched in widest expression as word ‘matter’ has been used in its definition and not ‘evidence’. Test laid down is that of a ‘prudent man’. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of the evidence which is important. In an appropriate case, conviction can be founded on the solitary testimony of a witness if the witness is cogent reliable and trustworthy."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Prashant Pallav while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Lily Sahay.
The facts of the case is that as per the FIR, the son of the deceased was not at home at the time of the incidence and had gone out of village. He received information in the evening, that his mother had been killed by his uncle by a sharp-edged weapon. When he came there, he found her dead body to be lying on the ridge of the homestead (bari) of the appellant. She had sustained bleeding injury over her head. It was alleged that the appellant used to identify and brand the deceased as witch, which was the proximate cause for committing the offence. After the incidence, deceased fled away with his entire family after locking the door. One eyewitness to the incident was wife of the informant’s brother. Police investigation found the case to be true and accordingly a charge sheet was submitted and he was put on trial under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and was convicted consequently.
Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no direct eye witness to the incidence except one in whose account there are material contradictions.
The Court was thus considering whether her evidence can be regarded as reliable and trustworthy so as to act upon to return a judgment of conviction on the basis of her solitary account?
The Court cited Supreme Court ruling in Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand wherein it was held that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact and the credibility test for sole witness was laid down.
"Oral evidence in any case is to be appreciated in the background of attending circumstance. P.W. 1 is a triable rustic lady and was incapable of speaking and understanding Hindi and therefore, her testimony was recorded by engaging one who was conversant with the interpretation. She is the only witness named in the FIR to have seen the occurrence. She is a natural witness as she is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and the place of occurrence was close to their house on the rear side. There is no past enmity which would have impelled her to falsely implicate the appellant. She has not been confronted with her earlier statement to elicit any contradiction in her account. Other witnesses are not direct eye witness to the incidence, but they are witnesses who arrived the place of occurrence immediately after the incidence. Defence has failed to impeach her credit and there is no tangible reason to disbelieve her account," the court observed.
After going through the statements of other witnesses, the court concluded that on the basis of the evidence, it can safely be inferred that appellant had been identifying the deceased as witch since long, and on the date of incidence he caused her death by inflicting injuries with a sharp cutting weapon. It thus found no infirmity in the Judgment of conviction and sentence and accordingly affirmed the same.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Gumid Murmu vs The State of Jharkhand
Click here to read/ download the Order: