Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from the conviction of appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for the murder arising from a witchcraft allegation, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, on finding the testimony of PW3, deceased’s daughter and sole eyewitness, to be reliable and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence. The Court strongly condemned witch-hunting as contrary to human dignity, constitutional morality, and the Rule of Law.
The Court observed 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… In such a situation, superstitious beliefs or fears are given precedence leading to vulnerable women becoming victims of collective hostility.”
Factual Matrix
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. According to the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused thereafter went to the deceased’s house, dragged her out, took her near the house of Manobodha Naik, and assaulted her severely. PW 3, the daughter of the deceased, alleged to had witnessed the assault. The deceased died during the early hours of 18 February 1998.
On 18 February 1998 at about 11:00 a.m., PW 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 the co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The prosecution examined 9 witnesses, while 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.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court?
-
Whether the conviction could safely rest upon the testimony of PW 3, who was the daughter of the deceased and therefore alleged by the appellant to be an interested witness?
-
Whether the absence of independent corroboration rendered the testimony of PW 3 insufficient to sustain the conviction?
-
Whether the facts brought the case within Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC on the basis of grave and sudden provocation or absence of the requisite intention for murder?
-
Whether the FIR lodged on the morning following the incident suffered from such delay as to cast doubt upon the prosecution case?
Analysis
Interference with Concurrent Findings under Article 136
At the outset, the Court acknowledged that it should ordinarily be slow in interfering with concurrent findings of the two courts below. At the same time, the Court noted that Article 136 confers wide powers, and interference remains possible in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the finding is perverse, procedurally defective, based on misreading of evidence, or otherwise unsustainable.
The Court distilled the governing principles in para 25. Among them were that the Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in criminal appeals except in exceptional circumstances; that it may interfere where the High Court has acted perversely or improperly; and that interference is justified where the prosecution evidence falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability or where the finding suffers from serious legal or evidentiary defects. [Shahaja v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558]
In order to determine whether the present case disclosed an exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the Court proceeded to examine the evidence.
Reliability of PW 3 — The Sole Eyewitness
The Court noted that the case in hand is one based upon direct ocular evidence. PW 3, the deceased’s daughter, claimed to have witnessed the entire incident. In her deposition she stated that the accused persons took her mother from their house and beat her with a BADI, and that she herself protested and was also beaten by the appellant. It found that PW 3 remained unshaken on the central fact that the appellant and the co-accused inflicted the assault that ultimately resulted in the deceased’s death.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that “direct ocular evidence if found to be natural, cogent and trustworthy, constitutes the best form of evidence and ordinarily prevails over all forms of evidence”. It further observed that minor contradictions or omissions do not necessarily justify discarding an eyewitness’s entire testimony [Shahaja].
The Court rejected the proposition that a conviction necessarily requires multiple eyewitnesses. Referring to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13, it reiterated that a court may act upon the testimony of a single witness where that testimony is credible and reliable.
The Court expressly relied upon the principle that “evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. The Court also relied upon Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10, emphasising that what matters is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence. A competent court may fully rely upon a solitary witness where the testimony is cogent, credible and trustworthy.
Applying those principles, the Supreme Court held that PW 3’s testimony “inspires complete confidence”. Her presence at the scene was regarded as natural and unquestionable, and her account of the assault and weapons remained sufficiently consistent and credible to sustain the conviction.
Interest Witness versus Related Witness
The Court distinguished a “related witness” from an “interested witness” and stated that a witness is not rendered “interested” merely because the witness is related to the deceased. The Court referred to Shio Shankar Dubey v. State of Bihar, (2019) 6 SCC 501, to explain that an interested witness is one shown to have a “direct motive, personal animosity or any other reason to falsely implicate the accused person”. Further, “a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness”.
Consequently, the Court held that the mere fact that PW3 was the daughter of the deceased did not make her evidence unreliable. In the circumstances of this case, her direct testimony was additionally corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, appellant’s contention had no merit.
Section 302 or Section 304 IPC?
The Court also noted that the appellant sought conversion of the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. The Court referred to Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, to explain that the distinction between Sections 302 and 304 IPC depends principally upon the intention of the accused, which must be gathered from the totality of the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, the force employed, whether there was a sudden quarrel or fight, premeditation, prior enmity, grave and sudden provocation, whether undue advantage was taken, and whether there were single or multiple blows.
Applying those considerations, the Court attached significance to the extensive injuries suffered by the deceased, including grievous injuries to the head, neck, chest and other vital parts of the body. These injuries manifested a clear intention to cause death. The Court further found that there was nothing on record establishing that any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC applied. Therefore, the plea for conversion of the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II was rejected.
Delay in Lodging the FIR
In the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court did not treat the delay as fatal. It relied upon Om Pal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2292, for the proposition that where delay in lodging an FIR is satisfactorily explained, the delay itself cannot be regarded as fatal. case.
The Court also considered the age and circumstances of PW 3, particularly the fact that she witnessed the brutal assault and murder of her mother, she would naturally have been in a state of shock and despair. The Court found it understandable that she did not immediately go to the police station during the night and that she gathered the courage to do so only after her maternal uncle arrived. Accordingly, it was held that the delay was held to be “well-explained”.
Witch-Hunting — An Anathema to Human Dignity
The incident had deeply disturbed the conscience of this Court, particularly because a defenceless woman had been branded as a practitioner of witchcraft and her daughter was forced to witness her mother being brutally killed.
The Court observed that witch-hunting continues to plague sections of society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersede the Rule of Law and constitutional morality. The consequences extend beyond killing and can include torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracisation, with women frequently becoming victims of collective hostility.
The Court further observed that blaming a woman for an unexplained or unfortunate event can become an easy means of finding a scapegoat. Against such irrationality, the Court placed emphasis on reason, describing it as a safeguard against collective irrationality. It linked this concern to the constitutional vision of a society based upon equality, fraternity and scientific temperament, observing that practices derogatory to women cannot be reconciled with constitutional morality and the Rule of Law.
“A Constitutional democracy such as ours cannot survive; wherein such derogatory practices continue to elude the principles of rule of law and Constitutional morality.”
Decision
The Court found the evidence against the appellant and the co-accused compelling. The Court agreed with both the trial court and the High Court on the appellant’s culpability and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Also Read: Orissa High Court upholds Acquittal of Accused Persons in witchcraft murder case
[Balku Oram v. State of Odisha, Criminal Appeal No. 2298 of 2026, decided on 13-8-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Savita Devi, Adv. Mr. Anand Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: 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.