Orissa High Court: Medical Evidence Alone Not Enough to Convict in 2002 Witchcraft Murder Case

Case Title: Babu das vs State of Orissa

In a significant ruling on June 23, 2026, the Orissa High Court acquitted Babu Das, a man who had been convicted of murder in 2003 over suspected witchcraft. While overturning the trial court's decision, the High Court emphasized a vital legal principle: while medical evidence can confirm that a murder took place, it cannot independently prove who committed the crime without reliable eyewitness testimony.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the case, the evidence, and why the High Court decided to set the accused free.

The Prosecution's Story: The 2002 Incident

The case dates back to May 28, 2002. The deceased, Natabara Gouda, was known in his village for practicing 'Jhada Phunka' (traditional healing rituals).

• The Alleged Attack: According to the prosecution, Gouda was returning home on a bicycle with a witness (identified as PW-11) after treating a sick child. The prosecution claimed that the accused, Babu Das, intercepted them because he suspected Gouda of practicing witchcraft against him and his brother.
• The Accusation: Babu Das allegedly attacked Gouda with a lathi (wooden stick). PW-11 fled the scene out of fear and informed the victim's son (PW-12). The son claimed he rushed to the spot and saw Das dragging and assaulting his father, who later succumbed to his injuries near a neighbor's house.
• The Conviction: Relying on the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-12, along with the medical evidence, the trial court convicted Babu Das in October 2003, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The High Court's Analysis: Why the Case Collapsed

When the case reached the Orissa High Court (CRLA No. 316 of 2003), the bench thoroughly re-examined the evidence and found glaring loopholes in the prosecution's narrative.

1. The Collapse of Eyewitness Testimonies 

Out of the 15 witnesses presented by the prosecution, an overwhelming 11 witnesses turned hostile in court.

• PW-11's Changing Story: The key witness who was traveling with the victim initially told investigators that Babu Das was the attacker, but in court, he changed his statement, claiming that "four persons" attacked them. The court deemed him completely unreliable.
• Glaring Contradictions: When PW-11 and the victim's son (PW-12) returned to the scene, their accounts did not match. PW-11 claimed the victim was completely missing from the spot. However, PW-12 contradicted this by claiming he saw the accused dragging and assaulting his father with a lathi at that very moment. This severe contradiction destroyed the credibility of both witnesses.

2. The Core Principle: Medical Evidence vs. Authorship of Crime 

The autopsy report (provided by PW-13) detailed nine severe injuries on the victim's body, including multiple long bruises and a compound fracture on the forearm. The doctor concluded that the injuries were caused by successive blows from a hard, blunt object and were sufficient to cause death.

The defense did not argue that the death wasn't a homicide. However, the High Court made a crucial observation that forms the crux of this judgment: "Authorship of the crime cannot be proved by medical evidence alone". Because the ocular (eyewitness) evidence was completely contradictory and untrustworthy, the medical findings could only prove how the victim died, not that Babu Das was the one holding the weapon. The medical evidence simply did not have the necessary eyewitness support to point the "needle of guilt" at the accused.

3. Flaws in the "Last Seen" Theory and Weapon Recovery

• Failed 'Last Seen' Theory: The prosecution tried to argue that the accused was the last person seen with the victim. However, the High Court noted that this theory fell apart because of the conflicting testimonies regarding who was actually present at the scene.
• Unreliable Weapon Recovery: The police claimed to have discovered the murder weapon based on the accused's statement. However, the independent witnesses tied to this seizure turned hostile. Furthermore, the chemical examination report failed to detect any of the deceased's blood on the seized lathi.

The Final Verdict

The Orissa High Court concluded that the prosecution's case was riddled with reasonable doubts and criticized the trial court for wrongly shifting the burden of proof onto the defense.

Reaffirming that the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish clear guilt, the High Court set aside the 2003 conviction and fully acquitted Babu Das.

FAQs

Why did the Orissa High Court acquit Babu Das after 20 years?

The High Court acquitted Babu Das because the prosecution's case was riddled with reasonable doubts and lacked reliable evidence. Out of the 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution, an astonishing 11 witnesses turned hostile. Furthermore, the statements of the two primary witnesses (PW-11 and the victim's son, PW-12) were highly contradictory regarding what they saw at the crime scene. Because of these gaps, the Court ruled that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.

What is the main legal takeaway regarding medical evidence from this judgment?

The most significant legal principle reaffirmed in this case is that authorship of the crime cannot be proved by medical evidence alone. The autopsy confirmed the victim suffered nine severe injuries from a blunt object, proving the death was a homicide. However, the Court highlighted that medical evidence only explains how a person died; without credible eyewitnesses to point the needle of guilt at the accused, medical reports cannot prove who committed the murder.

How was witchcraft connected to the murder allegations?

The victim, Natabara Gouda, was a local resident known for practicing 'Jhada Phunka' (traditional healing rituals). According to the prosecution's initial narrative, Babu Das intercepted and attacked the victim because he suspected the victim of practicing witchcraft against him and his brother.

Why did the police's recovery of the murder weapon fail to hold up in court?

The prosecution claimed to have discovered the murder weapon, a lathi (wooden stick) based on a statement from the accused. However, this evidence fell apart in court for two main reasons: the independent witnesses to the weapon's seizure did not support the prosecution's case, and the chemical examination report failed to show that the seized lathi contained any blood of the deceased.