Life sentence upheld for woman’s brutal murder over witchcraft allegation; Supreme Court condemns witch-hunting

On 17 February 1998, Puni Naik was allegedly dragged from her house by the appellant, Balku Oram, and co-accused Udai Oram, and assaulted with a lathi/badi on the suspicion that she had caused the death of a child through witchcraft.

P.W.3, the deceased’s daughter, claimed to have witnessed the assault. Puni Naik died from the injuries during the night.

P.W.3 lodged the written complaint at approximately 11:00 a.m. on 18 February 1998, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and the co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, relying principally on P.W.3’s eyewitness testimony.

The Orissa High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on 29 September 2022.

Whether the conviction could be sustained on the sole testimony of P.W.3, notwithstanding her relationship with the deceased and the absence of independent eyewitness corroboration?

Whether the inconsistencies concerning the time of death and the weapon used rendered P.W.3’s testimony unreliable?

Whether the facts brought the case within an exception to Section 300 IPC, warranting conviction under Section 304, Part I or II instead of Section 302 IPC?

Whether the delay between the occurrence and registration of the FIR cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution case?

Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution with the concurrent findings of the courts below?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 IPC concerning murder committed with common intention, and Sections 300 and 304 IPC concerning the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, conviction may be based on the testimony of a single witness where that testimony is wholly reliable; evidence is to be weighed, not counted.

The Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, and Shio Shankar Dubey v. State of Bihar for the propositions that a credible sole eyewitness can sustain a conviction and that mere relationship with the deceased does not make a witness “interested” or unreliable.

Under Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., intention is assessed from circumstances including the weapon used, the body parts targeted, the force employed, the number of blows, premeditation, sudden provocation, and whether the accused acted cruelly or took undue advantage.

Delay in lodging an FIR is not automatically fatal and must be assessed in the totality of the circumstances, as stated in Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra and Om Pal v. State of U.P.

Although Article 136 jurisdiction is exercised cautiously against concurrent factual findings, interference is permissible where the findings are perverse, legally erroneous, based on misreading of evidence, or where the evidence is unsafe to rely upon.

The Court found P.W.3 to be a natural eyewitness whose presence at the scene was unquestionable and whose testimony remained materially consistent regarding the identity of the assailants and the assault.

Her relationship with the deceased did not, by itself, make her an interested witness, particularly since no motive for false implication was established; her evidence was also corroborated by the medical findings of multiple ante-mortem injuries, including injuries to the head, neck, chest and other vital parts.

The discrepancies regarding the precise time of death and the weapon used were treated as minor inconsistencies that did not undermine the core ocular account.

The nature and distribution of the injuries demonstrated an intention to cause death, while no material established grave and sudden provocation or any other exception to Section 300 IPC; consequently, the plea for conversion to Section 304 IPC failed.

The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by P.W.3’s age, her having witnessed the brutal killing of her mother, and the fact that she went to the police station only after her maternal uncle arrived.

The Court therefore found no exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 136.

The assault, involving repeated injuries to vital parts of the body, established the requisite intention for murder under Section 302 IPC, and neither the FIR delay nor the alleged inconsistencies created reasonable doubt.

The concurrent conviction of Balku Oram under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed.

The criminal appeal was dismissed.