Witch-Hunting Is an Assault on Human Dignity; Sole Testimony of Victim’s Daughter Sufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Name: Balku Oram v. State of Odisha
Date of Judgment: 13 August 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 852
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Held: The Supreme Court held that a conviction can legally rest on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness if the evidence is natural, cogent and wholly reliable. A witness does not become “interested” or unreliable merely because she is closely related to the deceased. In the present case, the eyewitness was the deceased’s daughter, whose presence at the scene was natural and whose account remained consistent on the material particulars and was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court further held that the repeated assault on the victim’s head, neck, chest and other vital parts demonstrated a clear intention to cause death, leaving no basis to convert the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. The short delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the eyewitness’s young age, the trauma of witnessing her mother’s murder and the fact that she approached the police after her maternal uncle arrived. Condemning witch-hunting as an affront to human dignity and constitutional morality, the Court observed that superstition and irrational fear cannot be permitted to supersede reason and the rule of law.
Summary: The deceased, Puni Naik, was accused of practising witchcraft after the youngest daughter of another villager died. Acting on this superstition, Balku Oram and a co-accused dragged her from her house and brutally assaulted her with a lathi, resulting in her death. The assault was witnessed by the deceased’s daughter, who was approximately 15–16 years old at the time. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the Orissa High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant questioned the reliability of the daughter as a related and solitary eyewitness, pointed to alleged inconsistencies concerning the weapon and time of death, relied upon the delay in lodging the FIR and sought conversion of the conviction to Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC on the ground of grave and sudden provocation. Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court found that the eyewitness had remained unshaken regarding the identity of the assailants and the essential manner of assault. The Court reiterated that evidence must be weighed and not counted and that relationship with the victim is not, by itself, a ground for discarding otherwise trustworthy testimony. The medical evidence showing numerous ante-mortem injuries, including injuries to vital parts, corroborated the eyewitness and established the requisite intention for murder. The Court also found no material establishing grave and sudden provocation or any other exception to Section 300 IPC. Addressing the larger social issue, the Court described witch-hunting as a continuing social malady in which women are subjected to violence, torture and ostracisation because prejudice and superstition are allowed to prevail over reason, constitutional morality and scientific temper.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. It found no perversity or exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court concluded with the hope that the case would serve as a solemn reminder that justice must prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs.