The Supreme Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a man convicted of murdering a woman in Odisha after accusing her of practising witchcraft.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by Balku Oram, holding that the evidence on record clearly established his role in the killing of Puni Naik. The Court also affirmed the findings of the trial court and the Orissa High Court.

The case dates back to February 1998, when Puni Naik was allegedly targeted after the family of Manobodha Naik blamed her for the death of his youngest daughter, claiming that she had died because of witchcraft.

According to the prosecution, Balku Oram and co-accused Udai Oram went to Puni's house, dragged her outside and assaulted her with a lathi. Puni died from her injuries in the early hours of the following day.

The assault was witnessed by Puni's teenage daughter, Sukra Naik, who subsequently approached the police with her maternal uncle. An FIR was registered against Balku and Udai under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment, relying principally on Sukra's eyewitness account. The Orissa High Court upheld Balku's conviction in September 2022, observing that her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.

Before the Supreme Court, Balku argued that his conviction could not rest solely on the testimony of the deceased's daughter, whom he described as a related and therefore interested witness. He also sought reduction of the offence from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.

The Supreme Court rejected both contentions.

The Bench reiterated that there is no legal bar on convicting an accused solely on the basis of a single eyewitness if that testimony is credible and trustworthy. What matters, the Court said, is the quality rather than the number of witnesses.

The Court found Sukra to be a natural eyewitness and noted that her presence at the scene was unquestionable. Her account remained consistent on material aspects and was supported by the medical evidence.

Rejecting the argument that her relationship with the deceased made her an interested witness, the Court clarified that mere relationship does not make a witness unreliable. A relative would be considered an interested witness only where there is a motive, personal animosity or another reason to falsely implicate the accused.

The Bench also refused to dilute the conviction to culpable homicide. It noted that Puni had sustained multiple injuries to her head, neck and chest, including injuries to vital parts of the body. The nature and location of the injuries demonstrated the intention to cause death, the Court held.

In a strong observation against superstition-driven violence, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the continuing prevalence of witch-hunting in parts of society.

"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 observed.

The Bench noted that women are frequently the victims of witch-hunting and may be subjected to torture, physical assaults, sexual violence and social ostracisation.

The Court further remarked that blaming women for acts they did not commit reflects a deep-rooted social prejudice that seeks scapegoats instead of solutions.

The Supreme Court concluded by hoping that the case would serve as a reminder that justice must prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs, while affirming Balku Oram's life sentence for the murder of Puni Naik.