The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the life sentences of two brothers convicted in a witchcraft-linked murder case, ruling that the evidence presented failed to inspire confidence or prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In an order dated May 13, Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside the 2004 conviction of Tarsius Sorang and Maryanus Sorang. The bench observed that the “trend of evidence” did not reflect a “truthful story,” ultimately leading to the acquittal of the duo who had been fighting the charges for over two decades.
The case dates back to November 2, 2000, following the death of Alfosh Soren. According to the prosecution, the Sorang brothers allegedly assaulted Soren with a wooden log at the home of one Tintus Soren. The alleged motive was a suspicion of “black magic”; the brothers reportedly believed the victim was responsible for the deaths of their parents through witchcraft.
While a trial court initially found the brothers guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in January 2004, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment, the High Court found significant flaws in how that evidence was handled.
A critical factor in the High Court’s decision was the behavior of key witnesses. Two individuals, Sameer Lakra and Tintus Soren, who were allegedly with the victim drinking “haria” (rice beer) just before the assault, turned hostile during the trial.
The court noted that the witnesses’ refusal to support the prosecution’s version “itself speaks a different story.” Furthermore, the bench identified inconsistencies in the statements provided by the victim’s family members, noting they likely did not have a clear opportunity to see the accused fleeing the scene as they later claimed.
A major highlight of the judgment was the court’s clarification on the burden of proof. The bench emphasized that the responsibility lies entirely with the prosecution to prove a case “to the hilt.”
“Mere silence of the accused or not offering any explanation is not sufficient to infer their guilt; rather, the rigour of law is against the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons,” the court stated in its order.
The defense, led by advocate A.K. Chaturvedi, successfully argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence and that the initial informant—the victim’s son—failed to maintain his version of events during the trial.
Despite arguments from Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashistha that the trial court’s initial conclusion was sound, the High Court concluded that the trial court had committed a “serious error of law” by overlooking material contradictions that rendered the witnesses unreliable.
With this ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has cleared Tarsius and Maryanus Sorang of all charges, ending a legal battle that spanned twenty-four years.
