No Clear Evidence Of Abduction Or Killing: Gauhati High Court Acquits 5 Accused Of Witch-Hunting, Murder
The Gauhati High Court has acquitted five persons convicted of abducting and killing a woman suspected to be a witch, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed, “we are of the view that when there is no eyewitness to the abduction and the killing of the deceased, the issue of whether the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain, which firmly establishes that the deceased had died only due to the acts of the appellants, would have to be proved...The circumstantial evidence also does not form a complete chain showing that their alleged action, if any, was the cause of death of the deceased. There is nothing beyond their presence in the house of the deceased, to link them with the death of the deceased.”
The observation came in a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni, in a Sessions Case by which the appellants had been convicted under Sections 302, 367, 201 and 147 IPC and sentenced, inter alia, to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution case was that in June, 2006, the appellants, along with another accused, entered the house of the deceased, allegedly assaulted the family and took the deceased away on the suspicion that she was a witch. Her husband lodged an FIR on June 28, 2006. During investigation, her body was found buried and the post-mortem examination recorded that death was due to shock and haemorrhage following injury to the right lung.
The appellants contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the abduction or killing, that there were contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and that the evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report did not mention the time and date of death so as to connect the alleged abduction with the death. They further argued that there was no circumstantial evidence or last seen evidence connecting the appellants with the death.
The High Court found that there were no eyewitnesses to the abduction. It noted that though it could be implied that the appellants were the ones who had abducted the victim as they had come to the house looking for her and calling her a witch, “no one had seen the deceased with the appellants.”
The Court further found that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer had caused prejudice to the appellants, as they had not been given an opportunity to contradict the statements of the witnesses by confronting the Investigating Officer with their statements under Section 161 CrPC.
“In the present case, we find that the non examination of the Investigating Officer as a Prosecution Witness has caused prejudice to the appellants, as they had not been given the opportunity to contradict the statements of the witnesses, by confronting the Investigating Officer with the statements made by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis their testimony in Court.”
The Court also noted that though two of the witnesses had stated that the appellants were carrying dao, dagger and axe, there had been no seizure of the same by the police. It further found that there was no explanation as to how and by whom the place where the body was hidden was discovered, or how the witnesses first came to know where the body had been buried.
The Court found contradictions in the evidence of three witnesses as to the alleged abduction and the presence of the witnesses at the relevant time.
“The discrepancy in the evidence of PWs- 2, 4 and 6 goes to the root of the problem, inasmuch as, the very abduction and the death of the deceased at the hand of the appellants, has to be proved. In the present case, the evidence of PWs- 2, 4 and 6 not being in sync with one another, the discrepancies appear to be major discrepancies.”
The High Court also took note of the five-day delay in lodging the FIR and found that no reason had been provided by the prosecution witnesses for the delay.
“The delay of 5 days in filing the FIR gives rise to a suspicion that there has been embellishment in the case due to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.”
The Court further found “many discrepancies in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, even with regard to the date of recovery of the body and the manner in which it was recovered.”
Considering the circumstantial evidence, the Court found, “There is no evidence showing that the deceased was last seen with the appellants, though it could be speculated that the appellants had abducted the deceased when they had come to the house of the deceased.”
It therefore held, “We are accordingly of the view that the Prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court also observed that witch-hunting was a serious problem in the State and that the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015 had been enacted to curb the menace.
“Witch hunting violence is a result of deep rooted superstitions which has led to the loss of many lives in the State.”
Ultimately, the High Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had killed the deceased.
It noted that no weapon had been seized, the exact time of death could not be known and there was nothing to show that there was a short time period between the appellants going into the house of the deceased and the abduction and eventual death.
The appellants were accordingly acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The conviction was set aside and the Court directed their immediate release from judicial custody, if not wanted in any other case.
Case Title: Sumay Hembram @ Sumai Hembram & 4 Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.
Case No.: Crl.A./191/2020
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 161