Case Note On Judicial Condemnation Of Witch- Hunting (Balku Oram V. State Of Odisha, 2026 SCC Online Sc 1568)
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 1
- 2 min read
Ananya Yadav, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi
Decided on : August 13, 2026
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Kumar Mishra
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nilay Vipichandra Anjaria
Equivalent Citation: 2026 INSC 852
Background
The present matter was an appeal against the judgement and order of High Court of Orissa, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court,convicting the appellant, Balku Oram, of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment.
On 17 February 1998, the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik of Village Gundibali Luhakera died. Her family members attributed her death to witchcraft allegedly practised by the deceased, Puni Naik. The accused and co-accused thereafter went to the house of the deceased, dragged her out of her house and took her to the house of Manobodha Naik, where they assaulted her severely by means of a lathi (staff). The deceased died in the early hours of 18 February 1998.
The entire incident was witnessed by P.W.3, the daughter of the deceased. On 18 February 1998 at about 11:00 A.M., P.W.3 accompanied by her maternal uncle, went to the police station and gave a written complaint. A FIR dated 18 February 1998 was registered against the appellant and co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The prosecution examined 9 witnesses, however, the defence examined none. The trial court solely relied on the eyewitness testimony of PW 3 and convicted the appellant and co- accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Orissa, by judgment dated 29 September 2022, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence by the Trial Court.
Issues
I. Whether the Supreme Court shall interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court.
II. Whether the reliance on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, i.e., P.W.3 who was the daughter of the deceased, alleged by the appellants to be an ‘interested witness’and absence of independent corroboration could render the testimony of P.W.3 insufficient.
III. Whether the case could be brought within Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.
IV. Whether the filing of FIR on the next day of incident would amount to delay casting doubt on the case of prosecution.
