The Jharkhand High Court held that the reliability of a witness’s statement depends on the quality of evidence presented and not on the number of witnesses.

The dividing bench consists of: Judges Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary highlighted, “To trust or not to trust the evidence of a witness is a question every court faces in evaluating the evidence. The Evidence Act is not a pedantic document but a pragmatic one which does not mandate that any number of witnesses are necessary to prove any fact (Section 134).

“The definition of ‘proven’ in Chapter 3 is expressed in the broadest terms because the word ‘substance’ is used in its definition, not ‘evidence’. The test laid out is that of a ‘prudent man’. What is important is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of the evidence. In an appropriate case, if the witness is credible and credible, a conviction may be made on the basis of the witness’s testimony alone.” section bank added.

In the case details, the informant, who is the son of the deceased, claimed in the FIR that he was not at home at the time of the incident. In the evening, he learned that his mother was killed with a sharp-edged weapon by his uncle Gumid Murmu. On arrival, he found her body on the ridge (bari) of the farm of the appellant, who had previously referred to the deceased as a witch.

The incident was also witnessed by Sonamuni Tudu, the wife of the informant’s brother. The FIR was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, followed by a charge sheet also under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Practice of Witchcraft (Daain) Act, 1999. It also includes the accusations within the scope of article. The trial court found the appellant guilty under these sections, giving rise to the present criminal appeal.

The court observed that the oral evidence had to be considered in the context of the surrounding circumstances.

Drawing attention to the characteristics of the first witness, the Court stated the following: “PW 1 was a testable village woman and was not capable of speaking and understanding Hindi and, therefore, her statement was recorded by contacting someone familiar with the interpretation. She is the only witness who saw the incident mentioned in the FIR. Being the daughter-in-law of the deceased and the scene of the incident was recorded in their house at the rear.” It is a natural witness because it is close.”

The Court also observed that: “There is no past hostility that would lead him to falsely accuse the appellant. He was not confronted with his earlier statement in a way that would reveal any contradiction in his statement. Other witnesses are not direct eyewitnesses of the incident, but are witnesses who came to the scene immediately after the incident. “The defense has failed to discredit him and there is no concrete reason to disbelieve his explanation.”

With these evaluations, the Court did not find any flaws in the first instance court’s decision and sentence and ultimately rejected the criminal objection.

Case Title: Gumid Murmu V. State of Jharkhand

Click to Read the Decision