Written By Adv. Amarjeet[i], Yogesh Anand[ii] & Subham Babu[iii]
The recent outcry in Purnia, Bihar, wherein five members of a family were brutally murdered on suspicion of witchcraft, has again put the age-old practice of witch-hunting in the limelight. The evil practice, while old, is still claiming innocent lives, especially in Bihar and Jharkhand. One of the strongest sociological explanations for the prevalence of such practices is that there exists an overall low level of education and awareness in society. Individuals are still unaware and do not understand that accusing another of being a “witch” (Daain) is not only baseless but also against the law in India. Over 2,500 women have been killed in India on the charges of witchcraft since 2000, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.
To counter this evil, Bihar achieved the distinction of being the first Indian state to pass a special legislation, the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999[iv]. The Act aimed at curbing and ultimately ending torture, humiliation, and murder of women on accusations of witchcraft, which is an extremely common form of oppression in tribal regions and rural enclaves of the state.
The Act gives significant definitions to define pivotal words. A “witch” or a “Daain” is a woman who is accused, by a person, of having supernatural evil powers in the form of black magic, evil eyes, or harmful mantras which might cause harm to people or the general public as well[v]. The “identifier” is the person who first identifies a woman as a witch[vi]. The Act also prescribes individuals such as “Ojha,” “Guni,” or “Shekha”, native healers or spiritualists, who assert the faculty of identifying or “curing” witches[vii].
The Act consists of eight sections, of which Sections 3 to 6 elaborate on the main offences and the corresponding punishments. Section 3 criminalises any individual who identifies another as a witch. Whether the identification is by words, behaviour, or action, the offender is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may be up to three months, or by a fine of ₹1,000, or by both[viii]. Section 4 penalises further those who, on such identification, go on to physically or mentally torture the identified witch. This is also punishable with six months’ imprisonment or a fine of ₹2,000 or both[ix].
Section 5 prohibits the offence of abetment. It states that whoever abets another, encourages or induces any other person to call a woman a witch intentionally or unintentionally becomes liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, a fine of ₹1,000, or both[x]. Section 6 makes “witch curing,” that is, acts done by persons such as Ojhas or Gunis of conducting risky rituals or physically or mentally torturing the accused witch in the guise of exorcism or purging, a criminal offense. The offense can bring a maximum punishment of one year’s imprisonment, or a ₹2,000 fine, or both[xi]. Section 7 of the Act criminalises all such offences identification, torture, abetment, and witch-curing as cognizable and non-bailable offences. This implies that the police may arrest the accused on their own volition and bail can’t be claimed as a matter of right[xii].
In spite of the strong judicial system, the persistence of the witch-hunting cases in Bihar indicates some essential questions regarding the degree of transparency among the citizens as well as the efficiency of law and order machinery. There has been a catena of cases that have come before the Patna High Court in the year 2025 relating to witch hunting.
In Munni Devi Vs. The State of Bihar[xiii], dated 17-06-2025, the appellant, Munni Devi had filed an appeal against an order of acquittal dated 09.09.2024 under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby the respondents-accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court. The FIR No. Gurua P.S. Case No.178/2020 was lodged under Sections 341/323/302/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act. The informant’s charge was that on 3rd August 2020, Pratima Kumari tortured her daughter, Nirmala Kumari, informing her that Nirmala’s mother (the informant, Munni Devi) was a ‘dain’ (witch) and that she was preventing the marriage of Pratima Kumari. This turned into a physical attack on Pratima Kumari by Arjun Choudhary, Akhilesh Choudhary, and Phulesh Devi, during which Munni Devi’s husband Sarjun Chaudhary received head injuries that resulted in his death two days later at Blue Diamond Hospital, Patna. But the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no defect on the part of the Trial Court in the acquittal order because the prosecution was unable to establish the case against the respondents-accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed substantial delay in lodging the FIR, non-production of certificates of injury to the claimed injured eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and examination-in-chief of PW-3 (deceased’s mother), deposing that her son had expired after drinking liquor and collapsing, unequivocally denying the accused persons to have caused his death. The High Court also looked into the double presumption of innocence on the part of the accused in acquittal appeals. The appeal was heard by Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra.
In Rakesh Hembram and Others v. The State of Bihar[xiv] dated 24.03.2025, also pertains to “witch hunting” being the reason for the reported assault and killing. The prosecution witnesses continued alleging that the deceased mother Jasni Murmu was suspected of being a “Dain” i.e., a witch. In particular, PW-3 (Parvati Tuddu, the victim’s daughter) deposed that the accused individuals said they had killed her mother on the assumption that she was a “witch” who murdered a child. PW-4 (Arjun Tuddu, victim’s husband) also testified about an incident before the murder where some of the accused persons had visited his house, categorically saying that his family members were “witch” and attempted to kidnap him on the pretext of “putting out the lamp”. PW-1 (Shiban Tuddu, son of the victim), though initially averring that no one told him his mother was a witch in his presence, also affirmed subsequently that the accused individuals were actually calling his mother a “witch” and that this was what resulted in the incident. In spite of these serious charges of witchcraft as the motive behind the crime, the High Court eventually acquitted the appellants, on the grounds of benefit of doubt owing to various discrepancies, unfurnished evidence, and certain procedural lapses in the case for the prosecution.
The case of Karu Paswan & Others v. State of Bihar and Kauleshwar Paswan v. State of Bihar[xv], dated January 14, 2025, is a case arising from a criminal appeal relating to an incident that occurred in 1997 in undivided Bihar but was decided by the Jharkhand High Court in 2025, with witch hunting as the prime motive for the murder. The prosecution alleged that the victim, Asha @ Barhni, mother-in-law of the informant Pano Devi, was killed after being branded a witch and accused of causing the death of Kurhan Paswan’s brother. Witnesses, including the deceased’s son, nephew, and son-in-law, unanimously testified that the accused called her a “witch” and assaulted her with a knife, kudal, and shoes. The Investigating Officer corroborated that she had been accused of witchcraft. The defense argued that the informant’s father-in-law had also previously been killed on similar allegations, reflecting a pattern of unsubstantiated accusations. The High Court upheld the appellants’ convictions under § 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, finding the evidence consistent regarding the common intent to kill based on witchcraft allegations.
It is imperative to sensitise the masses to this legislation, popularise it through its induction in formative education among the people, and conduct routine sensitisation at the grassroots level. Witch-hunting is more than a matter of law; it is a sociological concern running deep that reflects society’s failure to protect the weak, and particularly women, from brutality based on superstition. Society must move away from fear and ignorance and come together to create a world where everyone is treated with respect, without stigma, torture, and violence on any grounds.
[i] Advocate & Assistant Counsel to the Additional Solicitor General of India at the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
[ii] Student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
[iii] Student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
[iv] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999 (India).
[v] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 2(2) (India).
[vi] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 2(3) (India).
[vii] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 2(4) (India).
[viii] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 3 (India).
[ix] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 4 (India).
[x] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 5 (India).
[xi] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 6 (India).
[xii] Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, No. 9 of 1999, § 7 (India).
[xiii] Munni Devi v. State of Bihar, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1275 of 2024 (Patna HC June 17, 2025).
[xiv] Rakesh Hembram & Others v. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/0454/2025 (Patna HC Mar. 24, 2025).
[xv] Karu Paswan & Others v. State of Bihar, MANU/JH/0044/2025 (Jharkhand HC Jan. 14, 2025).