Practices Like Witch-Hunting Still Persist; Superstition Supersedes Constitutional Morality, Laments Supreme Court

Expressing deep concern over the persistence of witch-hunting in parts of Indian society, the Supreme Court has observed that superstition, prejudice and irrational fear continue to supersede the rule of law and constitutional morality, leaving vulnerable women exposed to brutal violence and social ostracisation.

The observation came while dismissing an appeal filed by Balku Oram against his conviction and life sentence for the 1998 murder of Puni Naik in Odisha. The Court found that Oram and his co-accused had brutally assaulted Naik after she was accused of practising witchcraft, ultimately causing her death.

“…the facts of the present case have deeply disturbed the conscience of this Court, wherein a defenseless women was branded as a practitioner of witch-craft and what effect it must have had on the daughter of the deceased who had to witness her mother being killed in the most brutal way.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

'Superstition and irrational fear supersede rule of law'

The Court lamented that the “malady of witch hunting” continues to plague sections of society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear can take precedence over constitutional values and the rule of law.

“It is true that 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 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. In such a situation, superstitious beliefs or fears are given precedence leading to vulnerable women becoming victims of collective hostility.”, the Court added.

The Court noted that despite the Constitution prohibiting such derogatory practices and promoting scientific temper, such practices continue to exist in country, where “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.”

"In such situations, what can be given an ascendency is 'reason' for reason is the only virtue that stands as a bulwark against collective irrationality," the Court said.

The Court underlined that the Constitution envisages a society founded on equality, fraternity and scientific temperament. Practices that demean or harm women, it said, have no place in such a constitutional order.

Despite these constitutional ideals, the Court noted, practices such as witch-hunting continue in some sections of society.

"The Constitution of India envisioned a society founded on the principles of equality, fraternity, scientific temperament, wherein any practice derogatory to women was to be discarded. Despite this, practices such as witch-hunting continue to persist within few sections of our society. A Constitutional democracy such as ours cannot survive; wherein such derogatory practices continue to elude the principles of rule of law and Constitutional morality."

The judgment opened with the quote of Dr Ambedkar -“A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society.”

Factual Background

The bench made the aforesaid observation as a parting observation, while hearing an accused's appeal against the Orissa High Court's judgment upholding his conviction for committing the murder of a woman on allegations of practising witchcraft, which led to the death of his daughter.

The deceased was dragged out from her house and was assaulted by lathis on vital organs, leading to her death. The sole eyewitness i.e., victim's daughter witnessed the entire incident, and based on her testimony, which was found to be consistent and cogent, the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the conviction, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra rejected the Appellant's contention that the sole eyewitness testimony of the deceased's daughter would not be sufficient to base his conviction given that she was an interested/related witness.

The Court said that “a mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness interested or unreliable. A close relative, who is a natural witness, cannot be equated with an interested witness merely because of such relationship.”

“In the facts of the present case, the direct testimony of P.W.3 has been duly corroborated with medical evidence which further establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”, the Court added.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 r/w Section 34 — Murder — Witch Hunting — Conviction based on Sole Eyewitness Testimony — Upheld - Direct ocular evidence, if found natural, cogent, and trustworthy, constitutes the best form of evidence and ordinarily prevails over all other forms - The testimony of a single reliable eyewitness (PW-3, daughter of the deceased) who witnessed the brutal lathi assault on her mother after being dragged from her house on the accusation of practicing witchcraft, was consistent, unshaken, and duly corroborated by medical evidence. [Paras 17 - 22]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 134 — Quality vs. Quantity of Evidence — Sole Eyewitness - The legal system lays emphasis on the value, weight, and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity, or plurality of witnesses - The time honoured principle is that “evidence has to be weighed and not counted” - There exists no legal impediment to convicting an accused solely on the testimony of a single witness, provided such testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. [Relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13; Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 10; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91; Paras 20-35]

Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Related Witness vs. Interested Witness - A witness can be regarded as an “interested witness” only when it is demonstrated that the witness has a direct motive, personal animosity, or reasons to falsely implicate the accused - A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be equated with an interested witness merely on account of the relationship - Relationship far from being a foundation to discard testimony is often a sure guarantee of truth, as a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit to falsely implicate an innocent person. [Relied on Shio Shankar Dubey and Others v. State of Bihar, (2019) 6 SCC 501; Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614; Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158; Paras 24-35]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 300 (Exceptions), Section 302 vs. Section 304 Part I/Part II — Determination of Intention to Cause Death - The distinction between murder (Section 302) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304) depends on the intention of the accused, to be gathered from totality of circumstances including the nature of the weapon, target area, force employed, premeditation, and whether blows were struck on vital body parts - The infliction of extensive ante-mortem injuries and grievous blows on vital parts (head, neck, chest) reflects clear murderous intention - In the absence of evidence attracting any Exception under Section 300, plea for conversion of conviction to Section 304 Part I/Part II rejected. [Relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444; Paras 26-32]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Delay in Lodging FIR — When Not Fatal - Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution if reasonably and satisfactorily explained in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances - Where a 15–16 year old girl (PW-3) witnessed the gruesome assault and death of her mother late in the evening and lodged the report the following morning upon the arrival of her maternal uncle due to shock, despair, and lack of immediate support, the delay of a few hours stood sufficiently explained. [Relied on Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170; Paras 29-35]

Constitution of India — Article 136 — Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - Powers under Article 136 are wide and plenary, but the Supreme Court does not reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below unless the findings are manifestly perverse, unsupportable from record, vitiated by error of law/procedure, or where the decision shocks the conscience of the Court. [Relied on Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558; Balak Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219; Paras 15-25]

Social Justice & Constitutional Morality — Witch-Hunting — Practice Derogatory to Dignity of Women - Witch-hunting is a deeply rooted social malady driven by superstition, prejudice, and irrational fear, where vulnerable women are targeted as scapegoats and subjected to extreme brutality and ostracization - Such derogatory practices strike at the root of constitutional morality, human dignity, equality, and scientific temperament envisioned by the Constitution of India; reason must prevail as a bulwark against collective irrationality. [Paras 31-38]

Cause Title: BALKU ORAM VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. Ms. Savita Devi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Aditya Pushkal Khanna, Adv. Ms. Arushi Jindal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Isha Baloni, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Pathak, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Prachi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Sejwar, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Adv.