Quality Of Evidence And Not Number Of Witnesses Determine Credibility: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction In Witchcraft-Related Murder

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the credibility of a witness's testimony depends not on the number of witnesses but on the quality of evidence presented.

The division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary highlighted, “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 division bench added.

In the case details, the informant, the deceased's son, alleged in the FIR that he was absent from home during the incident. He learned in the evening that his mother had been killed by his uncle, Gumid Murmu, with a sharp-edged weapon. On arrival, he found her body on the homestead ridge (bari) of the appellant, who had previously referred to the deceased as a witch.

Sonamuni Tudu, the wife of the informant's brother, witnessed the incident. The FIR was filed under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant, with a subsequent charge sheet also including charges under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The trial court convicted the appellant under these sections, leading to the present criminal appeal.

The Court observed that oral evidence must be evaluated within the context of surrounding circumstances.

Noting the specifics of the primary witness, the Court remarked, “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.”

The Court further observed, “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.”

With these considerations, the Court found no flaws in the trial court's judgment and sentencing, ultimately dismissing the criminal appeal.

Case Title: Gumid Murmu V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 169

Click here To Read Judgement