Weak Extra-Judicial Confession and Broken Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Witchcraft-Related Murder

Jharkhand High Court acquitted Chonhas Lakra, who had been convicted of murdering his sister-in-law based on allegations of witchcraft. The court set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence, particularly the weakness of the circumstantial evidence and the unreliable nature of the extra-judicial confession.

Chonhas Lakra was convicted by the trial court of murdering his sister-in-law, Silwanti Lakra, in 2016. According to the prosecution, Lakra believed that his sister-in-law was a witch responsible for the deaths of his two children. The informant, the husband of the deceased and Lakra's brother, lodged an FIR stating that his wife had gone to the forest to collect Mahua flowers but did not return. The next day, her body was found under a stone, and the informant suspected his brother, Chonhas Lakra, of killing her due to witchcraft allegations.

The trial court convicted Lakra based on circumstantial evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a weapon (Tangi) from his house. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Lakra challenged this conviction in the High Court.

Weak Extra-Judicial Confession and Testimony of Key Witnesses
The prosecution's case relied heavily on an alleged extra-judicial confession made by Lakra. The primary witnesses, P.W. 6 (the mother-in-law of the deceased) and P.W. 7 (the father-in-law), testified that Lakra had confessed to the crime, but the court found these confessions unreliable. P.W. 6 admitted that the confession was made in the presence of the police, which undermined its credibility as an extra-judicial confession. The court noted that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Indian law unless properly recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was not done in this case.

As the court emphasized, "Extra-judicial confessions are a weak piece of evidence and must be scrutinized carefully. In this case, the confession was not made in front of credible witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding it were dubious."

Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence
The High Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish a complete and consistent chain linking Lakra to the crime. Although the deceased’s body was discovered concealed under a stone, there was no direct evidence placing Lakra at the scene of the crime, nor was there any "last seen" evidence to establish his presence near the victim before her death.

The court reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024), which held that the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with only one conclusion—guilt. In this case, the court found the circumstantial evidence inadequate to meet this standard.

Unreliable Recovery of the Murder Weapon
The prosecution also claimed that an iron Tangi (axe) was recovered from Lakra's house, allegedly linking him to the crime. However, P.W. 6, who was present during the recovery, denied witnessing the actual recovery of the weapon, casting doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Furthermore, although the Tangi had bloodstains, the prosecution failed to conclusively link it to the crime or establish that it was recovered based on Lakra's alleged confession.

The court emphasized that for recovery evidence to be credible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be shown that the discovery of the weapon was made based on a voluntary disclosure by the accused. In this case, the investigating officer (P.W. 8) failed to testify that the recovery was made following a valid confession or disclosure by Lakra. As a result, the recovery was deemed insufficient to support the conviction.

The post-mortem report confirmed that the victim had died due to multiple lacerations on her face and a fatal head injury. While the death was undeniably homicidal, the court held that the lack of direct evidence, combined with the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding the recovery of the weapon and the extra-judicial confession, failed to establish Lakra’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Jharkhand High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Chonhas Lakra, setting aside his conviction and life sentence. The court concluded that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence, and the extra-judicial confession was unreliable. As there was no solid link between Lakra and the murder, the court granted him the benefit of doubt, stating, “The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal, and the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent. In this case, the chain is incomplete, and the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.”

The court ordered Lakra's immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: October 22, 2024
Chonhas Lakra vs. The State of Jharkhand