SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, December 28: Jharkhand is a land of forests, hills, and close-knit tribal communities. Yet even in modern times, superstition continues to claim lives. Allegations of witchcraft, ritual killings, and human sacrifice are not unknown, particularly in remote tribal belts where faith often replaces reason and fear of the unseen governs daily life.
It was against this social reality that the Jharkhand High Court, still young as an institution, was called upon to decide one of the most disturbing cases to come before it—a case involving the ritual sacrifice of a child in the name of Goddess Kali.
The Case Before a Young Court
The case, titled Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, reached the High Court in 2002 as both a criminal appeal and a death reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court was required to decide whether the extreme penalty imposed by the Sessions Court should be confirmed.
For a High Court still in its formative years, the case became an early and defining confrontation with an ancient darkness that continues to shadow Jharkhand’s tribal heartland—human sacrifice driven by superstition. In such cases, the judiciary is often required not only to punish crime, but also to confront belief systems rooted deeper than law itself.
The Village, the Belief, and the Child
On the evening of December 11 1996, in the village of Torojoro of Jamtara district, Somlal Besra, a poor tribal farmer, returned home after harvesting paddy to find his nine-year-old son, Chirku Besra, missing.
In tribal villages, children often move freely between houses, so Somlal did not panic immediately. He searched nearby homes and spoke to villagers. Gradually, one fact emerged—Chirku had last been seen playing with Birad Murmu, the son of Sushil Murmu.
Murmu was known in the area as a Janguru, a ritual practitioner and devoted worshipper of Goddess Kali. There was a small Kali temple inside his house. That day, worship had taken place, and Chirku had eaten prasad there. After that, he was not seen again.
The search continued through the night and into the next day.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC@25: PESA rules become reality after years of judicial push
The Sack in the Pond
On December 13 1996, a villager washing his buffalo noticed a sack floating in the Barki Dagol pond. When the sack was pulled out, it revealed a horrifying sight—the headless body of Chirku Besra.
As shock spread through the village, another villager disclosed what he had seen the previous day: Sushil Murmu cycling toward the same pond carrying a sack, and later returning without it.
The villagers gathered and called Murmu. What followed was not a police interrogation, but a collective tribal confrontation rooted in village life.
Confession and Community Reality
Surrounded by villagers, Sushil Murmu did not deny the act. He openly stated that he had sacrificed Chirku Besra at the altar of Goddess Kali and claimed that his wife and mother had assisted him.
The High Court later observed that such open acceptance of guilt is not unusual in tribal society, where confession often arises from belief that the act was divinely ordained rather than fear of legal consequences.
Murmu was restrained and assaulted by villagers. Somlal Besra then went to the police station and lodged his fardbeyan.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC@25: How a Santhal daughter finally inherited the land
Investigation and Recovery
The police arrived the same day and uncovered a chilling sequence of ritualistic acts:
- The headless body was recovered from the pond.
- On Murmu’s disclosure, police went to Torojoro Gaddha, a water-filled ditch, where Murmu produced the severed head from a plastic bag hidden under a stone.
- Inside Murmu’s house was a Kali temple. South of it, beneath straw, police found a blood-stained ditch, and blood marks were seen on the wall near the idol.
- From the thatched roof of the temple room, Murmu produced a heavy, sharp weapon—the Bogy—used for sacrifice.
The post-mortem confirmed that the child’s head had been completely severed by a heavy sharp cutting weapon.
Trial and Conviction
There was no eyewitness to the killing. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence:
- the child was last seen at Murmu’s house,
- Murmu was seen carrying a sack toward the pond,
- repeated extra-judicial confessions before villagers and police,
- recovery of the body and severed head at Murmu’s instance,
- discovery of the blood-stained site and weapon from his house, and
- medical corroboration.
The Sessions Court convicted Murmu under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, sentenced him to death, and referred the matter to the High Court. His wife and mother were acquitted for lack of evidence.
The High Court’s Deliberation
The Jharkhand High Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Vishnudeo Narayan Prasad with Justice Lakshman Uraon concurring, emphasised that death penalty cases demand the highest degree of caution.
The Court examined every defence argument—delay in forwarding the FIR, absence of forensic testing, non-examination of the post-mortem doctor, alleged coercion in confessions, and defects in examination under Section 313 CrPC. It found that no prejudice had been caused and that the chain of circumstances was complete.
The central issue then became the sentence.
The defence urged that Murmu was an illiterate tribal man acting under blind superstition. While acknowledging this reality, the Court posed a broader question: if superstition were allowed to excuse human sacrifice, what message would the law send to a society already scarred by witchcraft killings?
The victim was a child. The act was deliberate, ritualistic, and brutal. Applying the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, the Court held that the crime shocked the collective conscience of society.
The death reference was answered in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court heard Murmu’s appeal solely on the question of sentence and, by judgment dated December 12 2003, upheld the High Court’s decision.
Justice Arijit Pasayat, speaking for the Bench, observed that the “little drops of humanness” that make humanity appeared to have dried up. The Court rejected the argument that superstition could mitigate punishment, holding that no belief can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent child.
The Court noted that Murmu himself had a child of the same age as the victim, yet chose to sacrifice another’s son. The manner of killing—beheading, carrying the severed head in a sack, and discarding it—revealed a mind beyond reform. The act bordered on a crime against humanity.
The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence stood confirmed.
A Continuing Judicial Struggle
The case did not remain an isolated episode. In the years that followed, the Jharkhand High Court repeatedly dealt with crimes rooted in witch-hunting and superstition, particularly affecting women, children, and the elderly in districts such as Gumla, Simdega, Latehar, Khunti, West Singhbhum, and Jamtara.
Women branded as daayans were often assaulted or killed by their own communities. In several such cases, the Court upheld convictions and rejected defences based on belief or custom, describing witch-hunting as a social crime that threatens constitutional order.
The Court also confronted cases of collective village violence, noting that witch-hunting often begins with suspicion, grows through fear, and ends in public brutality.
Recognising the pattern, the Jharkhand Legislature enacted the Jharkhand Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001. While interpreting the law, the High Court repeatedly observed that legislation alone cannot eradicate superstition, though a firm judicial response can draw a clear moral boundary.
Seen in this broader context, Sushil Murmu represents the end of belief-driven violence—the ritual sacrifice of a child—forcing courts at every level to confront the most disturbing consequence of blind faith.
Closing Reflection
From witch-hunting to human sacrifice, Jharkhand’s courts have repeatedly asserted that custom cannot defeat conscience and belief cannot overpower law.
The judgment in Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand thus occupies a grim but vital place in this continuing judicial narrative. It conveys an unambiguous message:
Superstition may be ancient,
but the Constitution is uncompromising.
And while faith may explain why a crime was committed,
it can never justify the taking of a human life.
