The Orissa High Court upheld the order of the trial court which granted acquittal to three persons accused of murdering a lady suspecting her of practicing witchcraft and observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, each of the links of the chain has to be proved sufficiently well to bring home the guilt of the accused.

Brief Facts:

The state filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge which acquitted the respondent, accused of murdering a lady and suspecting her of practicing witchcraft.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The case of prosecution relied on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses according to whom the accused broke and opened the front door and entered the house of the deceased and dragged her out saying she was a witch and the deceased, thereafter, did not return to the house. A missing complaint was lodged after five days of occurrence and it was stated by the prosecution that the accused confessed to the guilt of having killed the deceased and throwing her dead body in the river in the presence of police inspectors. It was further stated that it was at the instance of the accused persons, the dead body was traced

Observations of the Court:

The court stated that there was no evidence regarding the recognition of the three accused by the two witnesses either by the voice, the manner of talking, the general appearance, gait, etc and thus, the prosecution evidence on the point of identification of the accused was very weak and could not be relied upon. It was further stated that the prosecution witnesses could not support the prosecution case on material aspects of the case and in addition to this, there were discrepancies in the medical evidence that purported to fix the precise time of death.

The court observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, each of the links of the chain has to be proved sufficiently well to bring home the guilt of the accused and the links must form a continuous chain and must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused and no one else and in the present case the evidence brought on record does not meet the requisite standard.

The court further stated that the statements purportedly made by the accused leading to the recovery of the body of the deceased were made at a time when they were not in police custody and, therefore, could not be relied upon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The decision of the Court:

The court upheld the order of the trial court and acquitted the accused.

Case Title: State of Orissa vs. Mangulu Munda

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Satapathy

Case No.: GCRLA No. 36 of 2007

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Gajendra Nath Rout

Advocate for the Respondent: None  

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika