Court highlights discrepancies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, unexplained delay in FIR, and absence of direct evidence, stressing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt
In a significant judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Anjan Moni Kalita) overturned the convictions of five accused persons charged with the murder, abduction, and related offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a witch-hunting case. The appellants-Sumay Hembram @ Sumai Hembram and four others-were earlier convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and varying terms for other offenses.
The case arose from an incident dated June 23, 2006, where the appellants allegedly entered the house of the deceased woman, accused her of witchcraft, abducted her, and subsequently killed and buried her body. The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of close family members of the deceased, who claimed that the accused had come armed with weapons and expressed intent to kill the deceased on suspicion of witchcraft.
However, the High Court, after examining the evidence, noted serious contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2 (the deceased's husband), PW-4, and PW-6 (the deceased's daughters). The court observed that there was no eyewitness to the actual abduction or killing of the deceased by the accused. PW-6's testimony suggesting her presence during the abduction was contradicted by PW-4's statement that all family members, including PW-6, fled the house in fear. The prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer, which prejudiced the accused by denying them the opportunity to confront witnesses with their prior statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, the court found an unexplained delay of five days in filing the FIR, which was lodged on June 28, 2006, despite the incident occurring on June 23, 2006. The delay raised suspicion about the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution's version. The recovery of the deceased's body was also shrouded in inconsistencies, with conflicting accounts regarding the date of recovery and how the body was located before the police and magistrate arrived.
Importantly, the post-mortem report did not specify the exact time of death, nor did it conclusively link any injuries to the accused. The absence of seizure of weapons allegedly used and the lack of last-seen evidence connecting the accused to the victim's death further weakened the prosecution's case.
Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), the High Court reiterated that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot substitute for proof. The circumstantial evidence presented did not form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
The court also acknowledged the gravity of the social evil of witch hunting in Assam, referencing the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015, enacted to curb such practices. However, it clarified that the present case's evidence was insufficient to link the accused conclusively to witch-hunting-related violence.
Accordingly, the Gauhati High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants from judicial custody if not required in any other case. The judgment underscores the paramount importance of the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as murder and witch hunting.
Bottom Line:
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in testimonies and absence of clear circumstantial evidence can lead to acquittal.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 367, 201, 147; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 145; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313; Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015
Sumay Hembram @ Sumai Hembram v. State of Assam, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976713
