Back
Supreme Court Upholds Life Term of Balku Oram for Witch-Hunt Murder Citing Compelling Eyewitness Testimony
In a powerful judgment that reaffirms the over superstition, the of Balku Oram, upholding his for the brutal 1998 murder of a woman in Odisha’s Sundargarh district, whom the villagers had branded a witch. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria found that the – the victim’s teenage daughter – gave "" testimony, compelling enough to sustain the conviction.
A Night of Horror in Gundibali Luhakera
The tragedy unfolded on , when the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik died. Blaming the death on witchcraft practiced by Puni Naik, the appellant and co-accused Udai Oram dragged Puni from her house and assaulted her with a lathi in front of Naik’s home. Puni Naik succumbed to her injuries early the next morning. Her daughter, Sukra Naik (P.W.3), witnessed the entire attack and later filed the complaint.
The trial court and the both relied on P.W.3’s evidence to convict Oram under . The High Court, in , affirmed the , noting that the injuries were on vital parts of the body and the corroborated the eyewitness account.
Arguments: Quality Over Quantity
Senior counsel for Oram argued that P.W.3, being a close relative, was an "" and that her uncorroborated testimony could not sustain a . They also contended that the act was committed under , warranting a conviction under rather than murder. A delay of nearly a day in lodging the FIR was also highlighted.
The State of Odisha countered that the ’s testimony was credible and corroborated by the . Relying on the seminal decision in , the State argued that matters. The delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by the trauma suffered by the young witness.
Why the Daughter’s Word Alone Was Enough
Writing for the Bench, Justice Mishra scrutinised the legal principles governing testimony. He cited for the rule that , if natural and trustworthy, prevails over all other forms. The court also drew on to underscore that “.”
Rejecting the “” claim, the court quoted to distinguish between a related witness and an interested one. A close relative, the court said, is a and usually the last to falsely implicate an innocent person. Here, P.W.3’s account was consistent in both chief and cross-examination, and the – including bruises on the head, neck, chest, and thighs – aligned with her description.
On the plea for a lesser offence, the Bench applied the factors from – the nature of the weapon, the vital parts targeted, and the multiple blows – to conclude that the intention to cause death was clear. No exception under was made out.
The was explained as natural for a 15‑year‑old girl who had witnessed her mother’s murder. Citing and , the court held that a does not fatal to the prosecution.
Key Observations
The court paused to condemn the practice of witch‑hunting:
“The facts of the present case has deeply disturbed the conscience of this Court, wherein a defenseless women was branded as a practitioner of witch‑craft… 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.”
It warned that a constitutional democracy cannot survive if such derogatory practices continue to elude the and .
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court , and . The Bench directed that the present case serve as “a solemn reminder that justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs.” The judgment reinforces that when a single, reliable eyewitness account is backed by , it is more than sufficient to uphold a , even in cases rooted in deep‑seated social prejudices.
