The Supreme Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of killing a woman in Odisha after she was branded a practitioner of witchcraft, while issuing a strong reminder that superstition cannot override constitutional values.
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by Balku Oram, holding that the evidence clearly established his involvement in the killing of Puni Naik along with co-accused Udai Oram.
The Court noted that Puni was targeted after a young girl died and her family attributed the death to alleged witchcraft. The judges expressed concern that witch-hunting continues to expose women to violence, humiliation and social exclusion.
The Bench observed that prejudice and irrational fear can create an environment in which women are unfairly made scapegoats for events they had no role in causing.
The case dates back to February 1998 in Rourkela. The prosecution case was that the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik died on February 17 that year. The family subsequently blamed Puni for the death, alleging that she had used witchcraft.
Balku and Udai allegedly went to Puni’s house, dragged her outside and attacked her with a lathi. She died from her injuries in the early hours of the next day.
The assault was witnessed by Puni’s teenage daughter, Sukra Naik, who was around 15 or 16 at the time. She went to the police with her maternal uncle the following morning, leading to the registration of a murder case against the two accused.
The trial court relied substantially on Sukra’s eyewitness account and convicted both men, imposing life sentences. The Orissa High Court later upheld Balku’s conviction in 2022, finding that her evidence was supported by the medical findings.
Before the Supreme Court, Balku argued that his conviction should not rest on the testimony of a relative of the deceased. He also sought to have the charge reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Supreme Court rejected both submissions.
The judges reiterated that the law does not require a particular number of witnesses when a single eyewitness provides credible evidence. What matters is the reliability and quality of the testimony, rather than the number of people who witnessed the incident.
The Bench found Sukra to be a natural witness whose presence at the scene was beyond doubt. Her account remained consistent on the key details and was supported by the medical evidence.
The fact that she was Puni’s daughter did not, by itself, make her an unreliable or “interested” witness, the Court said. A witness cannot be discredited merely because of a family relationship unless there is evidence of a motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused.
The Court also found no basis for reducing the conviction. Puni had sustained multiple injuries, including serious wounds to her head, neck and chest. The injuries to vital parts of the body, coupled with the manner of the assault, demonstrated the intention necessary to sustain a murder conviction.
The judgment ended with a broader message, stressing that the case should serve as a reminder that justice must stand above superstition and irrational beliefs.
The Court’s observations underline the continuing challenge posed by witch-hunting, particularly its disproportionate impact on women, and reaffirm that deeply rooted social beliefs cannot provide justification for violence.
