Nearly three decades after a woman was allegedly murdered after being branded a witch in Bokaro, the Jharkhand High Court on Thursday acquitted the lone convict in the case, stating that the prosecution could not prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt as the informant, who was the sole eyewitness, was unreliable.
After hearing the criminal appeal brought by the accused, Mansu Manjhi, the Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava threw aside the conviction decision passed in December 1999 and the punishment order passed in January 2000.
The Bench, while quashing the conviction, observed, “The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant… beyond all reasonable doubt.” It also found the informant, who was presented as the lone eye-witness, not credible. “Presence of informant at the place of occurrence is doubtful and consequently, his testimony that he had witnessed the assault on the deceased by the appellant cannot be relied upon,” the court noted.
The event took occurred in September 1996 in the morning when Chandmani Manjhian walked to a neighbouring paddy field, the prosecution said. Her son Rooplal Manjhi, the informant and only eyewitness, said Mansu Manjhi, armed with a tangi (axe), and another accused Raghunath Manjhi assaulted her, thinking she was a witch.
The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday acquitted the only convict in the case of the alleged murder of a Bokaro woman branded a witch nearly three decades ago, saying the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt as the informant, claimed to be the sole eyewitness, was unreliable.
After hearing the criminal appeal brought by the accused, Mansu Manjhi, the Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava threw aside the conviction decision passed in December 1999 and the punishment order passed in January 2000.
The Bench, while quashing the conviction, observed, “The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant… beyond all reasonable doubt.” It further held that the informant, portrayed as solitary eye witness was not reliable. “Presence of informant at the place of occurrence is doubtful and hence his testimony that he had witnessed the assault on the deceased by the appellant cannot be relied upon,” the court remarked.
The Bench also pointed up discrepancies with relation to the weapon of offence. The informant in her written statement stated that the deceased was attacked with an axe. But he deposed before the trial court that the appellant had assaulted her with a sword. “An important inconsistency exists in the evidence of the informant as to the weapon used in the assault. This divergence is important and has materially impacted on the prosecution case,” the court said.
The High Court also observed that certain independent prosecution witnesses turned hostile throughout the trial. It further observed that the investigating officer (IO) was never interrogated before the trial court and, thus, the prosecution could not prove the important features of the case.
The High Court observed that “the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence are that conviction on the basis of evidence of a single witness is permissible only where the said evidence is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. On the ground of non-fulfillment of that criterion, the benefit of doubt was provided to the appellant and conviction was set aside by the Bench.
Court records reveal that Mansu Manjhi was out on bail after his sentence was deferred in January 2000 pending appeal. Almost 26 years later, the appeal was approved and the High Court released him from the burden of his bail bonds.
