The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering a woman over allegations that she practised witchcraft. [Balku Oram v. State of Odisha].A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria held that the trial court and the Orissa High Court had correctly held the accused guilty and that his conviction and sentence deserved to be affirmed.The Court said the direct evidence on record clearly established the role of the accused and the co-accused in the killing."The nature of the direct evidence appearing against the appellant (Balku Oram) is compelling, which clearly establishes that the appellant with the co-accused brutally murdered the deceased on the allegation of her causing death of the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik by practicing witchcraft," the Court said..The Court also expressed concern over the continuing practice of witch-hunting and how superstitions continue to prevail over rule of law."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 Court said.It noted that victims of witch-hunting are mostly women who are subjected to torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracisation. The Court added that blaming women for acts they had not committed reflected a deeply rooted social prejudice that sought scapegoats rather than solutions."It often becomes an easy escape to blame a woman for the acts she did not commit, thus reflecting a deeply rooted social prejudice that often seeks scapegoats rather than solutions," the Court said..The malady of witch hunting still plagues sections of our society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersedes the rule of law, constitutional morality.Supreme Court.The case arose from the killing of one Puni Naik in Odisha's Rourkela in February 1998 after she was accused of practising witchcraft.According to the prosecution, the youngest daughter of one Manobodha Naik died on February 17, 1998. Manobodha’s family claimed that the girl had died because of witchcraft practised by Puni.Thereafter, Balku Oram and co-accused Udai Oram went to Puni’s house, dragged her out and assaulted her with a lathi. Puni succumbed to her injuries in the early hours of the following day.The assault was witnessed by Puni’s daughter, Sukra Naik, who was around 15-16 years old at the time..Sukra approached the police the next morning along with her maternal uncle, following which an FIR was registered against Balku and Udai under Sections 302 (murder) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The trial court relied primarily on Sukra’s eyewitness testimony to convict both men and sentenced them to life imprisonment.Balku challenged his conviction before the Orissa High Court, which dismissed his appeal in September 2022 after finding that Sukra’s testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence.He then approached the Supreme Court..Before the top court, Balku argued that the conviction could not be sustained solely on the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, who was a related witness. He also urged the Court to reduce the offence from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II.The Supreme Court rejected both arguments..On Sukra’s testimony, the Court reiterated that a conviction can be based on the evidence of a single eyewitness if the testimony is reliable.“When there is a direct evidence in the form of a sole eyewitness testimony, there exists no legal impediment on convicting solely on the basis of that since what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses,” the Court said.The Bench found Sukra to be a natural eyewitness whose presence at the scene was unquestionable. Her account of the assault remained consistent on the material aspects and was also corroborated by the medical evidence, it said..The argument that Sukra should be treated as an interested witness because she was Puni’s daughter was also rejected.The Court explained that a relative becomes an interested witness only where there is some motive, personal animosity or other reason to falsely implicate the accused.“Mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness interested or unreliable,” the Court said..The Court also declined to reduce Balku’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It noted that Puni had suffered several injuries, including serious injuries to her head, neck and chest. The nature and location of the injuries, particularly those on vital parts of the body, demonstrated an intention to cause death, the Court held.“This Court fervently hopes that the present case serves as a solemn reminder that justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs,” the judgment stated..[Read Judgement]
