Back
Balku Oram's Life Sentence for Murder Over Witchcraft Allegations Affirmed by Supreme Court
The has upheld the life imprisonment of Balku Oram for the brutal murder of a woman accused of practicing witchcraft, delivering a strong rebuke against superstition and reaffirming the primacy of . A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal against by the trial court and the , which had convicted Oram under .
A Village Consumed by Fear
The case originates from , in the village of Gundibali Luhakera, Sundergarh district. When the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik died that evening, her family blamed the deceased, Puni Naik, for causing the death through witchcraft. That night, Oram and co-accused Udai Oram dragged Puni Naik from her home, took her near Manobodha’s house, and assaulted her severely with lathis. The sole eyewitness was Puni Naik’s 15-year-old daughter, Sukra Naik (PW3), who watched helplessly as her mother was beaten. Puni Naik succumbed to her injuries in the early hours of . The FIR was lodged later that morning at 11 a.m., after PW3’s maternal uncle arrived to support her.
Arguments: Reliability of the Sole Witness
Oram’s counsel argued that PW3, as an being the daughter of the deceased, could not be relied upon without independent corroboration. The appellant also contended that the act was committed under , falling under (), and pointed to a delay in filing the FIR. The State countered that the testimony of a close relative is often the most natural and credible, and that the corroborated PW3’s account. The delay was explained by the trauma and shock experienced by a teenage girl who had just witnessed her mother’s murder.
Legal Analysis: Quality Over Quantity
The Supreme Court applied the well-settled principle that a conviction can rest on the of a single witness if that testimony is found to be cogent, credible, and trustworthy. Citing and , the Court reiterated that “the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence.” PW3 remained unshaken in her deposition, consistently naming Oram and describing the assault. The —which listed multiple bruises, lacerated wounds, and blood clots on the skull—matched her account and confirmed that injuries were inflicted on vital parts such as the head, neck, and chest. The Court thus rejected the argument that the case belonged under Section 304, holding that “the nature of the injuries manifests a clear intention to cause death.”
On the , the Court noted that PW3 was only 15-16 years old at the time and had just witnessed a horrific crime. It held that “it would not have been expected from the daughter to run to the concerned Police Station in the night itself,” and found the delay adequately explained.
Witch-Hunting: An Anathema to Human Dignity
In a significant portion of the judgment, the Court condemned the practice of witch-hunting as a violation of constitutional values. “The envisioned a society founded on the principles of equality, fraternity, scientific temperament, wherein any practice derogatory to women was to be discarded,” the bench observed. “A Constitutional democracy such as ours cannot survive; wherein such derogatory practices continue to elude the principles of and .”
The Court noted that the victim was a defenseless woman branded as a witch, and that her daughter was forced to witness the brutality. “Sometimes in the most difficult situations, 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 judgment reads. The bench called for reason to prevail over collective irrationality: “reason is the only virtue that stands as a bulwark against collective irrationality.”
India currently lacks a central anti-witch-hunting law, though states like Odisha, Assam, Bihar, and Chhattisgarh have enacted specific legislation. Witch-hunting continues to be a scourge, with incidents reported as recently as July 2026 in Chhattisgarh and December 2025 in Assam. The Supreme Court’s strong observations serve as a reminder that allegations of witchcraft cannot justify violence, and that the must always trump superstition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming Oram’s conviction and life sentence under . “Both the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly held on the culpability of the appellant,” the bench concluded. “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, delivered on , stands as a landmark reiteration that no belief system, no matter how deeply held, can excuse the taking of a life. It underscores the duty of every citizen to develop a and uphold the constitutional promise of dignity and equality for all.
