New Delhi: The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a man for the murder of a woman who was branded a practitioner of witchcraft and beaten to death, observing that witch-hunting continues to plague sections of society where superstition and irrational fear supersede the rule of law and constitutional morality.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivering the judgment, opened by invoking the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the idea of a just society.
“A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society.”
The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing an appeal against a judgment dated September 29, 2022, of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed his conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution's case, after the youngest daughter of one Manobodha Naik died on February 17, 1998, her family attributed the death to witchcraft practised by the deceased. The appellant and a co-accused thereafter dragged the deceased from her house, took her near Manobodha Naik's house, and assaulted her severely with a lathi, an incident witnessed by the deceased's daughter. The deceased succumbed to the assault during the early hours of the following day. The daughter, along with her maternal uncle, went to the police station the next morning and lodged a complaint, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the appellant and the co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court, relying on the sole eyewitness testimony of the deceased's daughter, convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment, a decision the High Court affirmed on appeal, holding that the injuries were on vital parts of the deceased's body and that the eyewitness account was corroborated by medical evidence.
Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole eyewitness, being the deceased's daughter, was an interested witness whose uncorroborated testimony could not sustain a conviction, that the case at best fell under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as the act was committed on grave and sudden provocation, that there was a delay of one day in lodging the FIR, and that there were material contradictions in the eyewitness's account regarding the time of death and the weapon used, given that the post-mortem report did not record any injury attributable to an axe though the witness had stated the appellant was carrying one. The State, in response, submitted that mere relationship with the deceased did not render the witness interested, particularly where her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, and relied on the decisions in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras and Adalat Yadav Etc. v. State of Bihar for the proposition that conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a sole reliable witness.
The Court began by reiterating the limited scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution with concurrent findings of two courts below, referring to its earlier decision in Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558, for the principle that such interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the findings are perverse, contrary to the principles of natural justice, or where the evidence falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability.
Examining the eyewitness's deposition, the Court found that her account of the assault had remained consistent through examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and held that direct ocular evidence, if natural, cogent and trustworthy, constitutes the best form of evidence. Relying on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras and its own decisions in Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10, and Shio Shankar Dubey and Others v. State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 501, the Court held that conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness of unimpeachable credibility, that quality rather than quantity of evidence is what matters, and that a close relative who is a natural witness to the crime cannot, for that reason alone, be treated as an interested witness.
On the plea that the offence fell within Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, the Court referred to the post-mortem findings, which recorded multiple ante-mortem injuries including bruises and lacerations on the head, neck, chest, thighs and abdomen, and applied the test laid down in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 444, for distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder, having regard to factors such as the nature of the weapon used, whether the blow was aimed at a vital part of the body, and the presence or absence of premeditation. Finding that the injuries inflicted on vital parts of the deceased's body manifested a clear intention to kill, and that no exception to Section 300 of the IPC had been established, the Court rejected the plea for conversion of the conviction.
On the delay of about eighteen hours in lodging the FIR, the Court, relying on its recent decision in Om Pal and Others v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand), reported in 2025 INSC 1262, and the earlier decision in Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170, held that delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal where it stands satisfactorily explained. The Court found the delay explained by the fact that the sole witness, aged fifteen to sixteen years at the time, had just witnessed her mother's brutal killing and could reasonably be expected to have gone to lodge the report only after her maternal uncle arrived at the house.
While affirming the conviction, the Court observed that the facts of the case had deeply disturbed its conscience, and remarked on the continuing prevalence of witch-hunting in parts of Indian society.
“It is true that the malady of witch hunting still plagues sections of our society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersedes the rule of law, constitutional morality. The brutality associated with witch hunting extends far beyond the act of killing; where victims mostly women are subjected to torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracization.”
The Court further observed that the Constitution envisions a society founded on equality, fraternity and scientific temperament, in which practices derogatory to women are to be discarded, and that a constitutional democracy cannot survive if such practices are allowed to persist. Holding that the direct evidence against the appellant was compelling and that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly held him culpable, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, expressing the hope that the case would serve as a reminder that justice must prevail over superstition and irrational belief.
Case Title : Balku Oram v. State of Odisha (2026 INSC 852)
