Cuttack/Baripada: Observing that “a case of murder cannot be proved on mere hunches or possibilities” and that courts cannot presume a witness is truthful solely because of his relationship with the victim, the Orissa High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted two decades ago for allegedly murdering a woman on suspicion of practising witchcraft in Mayurbhanj district.
Allowing the criminal appeal, a Division Bench of Justice MR Pathak and Justice Sashikanta Mishra set aside the March 10, 2004 judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, which had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered Thakuri Mohanta June 21, 2002 over the suspicion that she practised witchcraft.
The victim’s son, Laxman Mohanta, lodged the FIR at Mahulapada PS the same day, following which police arrested the accused and filed a chargesheet after investigation. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and relied primarily on the testimony of the informant, whom the trial court treated as an eyewitness. Accepting his version and the alleged motive of witchcraft, the trial court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Reassessing the evidence, however, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench held that the trial court had been unduly influenced by the assumption that, being the son of the deceased, the informant would not falsely implicate an innocent person. “The Court cannot proceed merely on the assumption that a son would not lie about the identity of his mother’s killer. We may also point out that graver the offence, stricter is the proof required to establish it. A case of murder cannot be proved on mere hunches or possibilities,” the Bench observed. Holding that the prosecution evidence lacked the degree of reliability required to sustain a conviction for murder, the High Court ruled that the conviction could not be upheld. It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence, and discharged the appellant’s plea.
