The court affirmed that a conviction may rely on a single witness' credible testimony when supported by circumstantial evidence, as opposed to focusing solely on the number of witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 18.09.2024 Pronounced On: 25.09.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is before this Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 3 02 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.

2. Informant- Sanat Murmu is the son of the deceased. As per the FIR, he was not at home at the time of the incidence and had gone out of village. He received information on 22.05.2013 at around 6 O’ clock in the evening, that his mother had been killed by his uncle Gumid Murmu by a sharp-edged weapon. On this information 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. 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. Incidence was seen by Sonamuni Tudu, who happened to be the wife of the informant’s brother.

3. On the basis of the written report, Barhait P.S. Case No.88/13 was registered under Section 3 02 of the IPC against the appellant on the very same day of the incidence. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet and he was put on trial under Section 3 02 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.

4. Altogether seven witnesses have been examined in this case and relevant documents including post mortem examination report has been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct eye witness to the incidence except P.W. 1 in whose account there are material contradictions.

6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

FINDINGS

7. Homicidal death has been proved by the Doctor (P.W. 7), who has proved the post mortem examination report. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the body: -

i. Incised wound 8" x 1" x upto bone deep behind the middle of head starting from above the right ear transversally placed

ii. Lacerated wound size 5" x 1" x upto bone deep over middle of head longitudinally placed.

iii. Abrasion measuring 2" x 2" over left palm.

iv. Lacerated wound size 1" x 1¼" x skin deep over back of right hand in the middle.

Death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury nos. i and ii.

8. P.W. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has deposed that her mother-in-law had gone in the evening at 5 O’clock to bring wood from the forest area and she had gone to take water from the hand-pump. While she was returning after taking wood, on the ridge of the land of the Gumit Murmu (appellant) and Rana Murmu, appellant gave a blow by Dabiya (sharp cutting weapon) over her head, as a result she sustained fatal injury and died on spot. In her cross examination at para 4, she has stated that after returning home when she did not find anyone, she went to look for towards the place of occurrence where she saw the accused giving the deceased a blow with a sharp-edged weapon. On hulla, villagers gathered there. Admittedly, there is no other eye witness to the incidence. Matter for consideration is if 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?

9. 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