SC upholds murder conviction, calls witch-hunting an affront to human dignity
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA New Delhi, August 14: The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the practice of witch-hunting, describing it as a serious…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
New Delhi, August 14: The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the practice of witch-hunting, describing it as a serious assault on human dignity and warning that superstition, prejudice and irrational fear cannot be allowed to override the rule of law and constitutional morality.
The observations came while the court dismissed the appeal of Balku Oram, who had been convicted for the murder of Puni Naik after she was accused of practising witchcraft. The Court upheld the life sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Orissa High Court.
The case involved the brutal killing of Puni Naik in Odisha in 1998 after members of her family allegedly blamed her for the death of a young girl, accusing her of practising witchcraft. The prosecution case was supported by the testimony of Puni Naik’s daughter, who witnessed the assault. The Supreme Court found her testimony reliable and upheld the conviction.
However, while concluding the case, the Bench made a strong observation on the wider social problem of witch-hunting.
The Court said the facts of the case had “deeply disturbed” its conscience, particularly because a defenseless woman was branded as a practitioner of witchcraft and her daughter was forced to witness her mother being brutally killed.
It observed that witch-hunting continues to plague sections of society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear take precedence over the rule of law and constitutional morality. The Court noted that the victims are mostly women and may face torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracisation in addition to the risk of being killed.
‘Reason is the only virtue against collective irrationality’
The Supreme Court also highlighted the gendered nature of such violence, observing that blaming a woman for an incident she did not cause can become an easy way of finding a scapegoat.
The Court stressed the importance of reason and scientific temperament in confronting such beliefs. It said that reason provides a safeguard against collective irrationality and recalled that the Constitution envisages a society founded on equality, fraternity and scientific temperament.
The Court’s message goes beyond the individual criminal case: superstition cannot become a justification for violence, humiliation or the denial of basic human dignity.
Witch-hunting remains a concern in Jharkhand
The Supreme Court’s observations are particularly relevant to Jharkhand, where witch-hunting and witchcraft-related violence continue to pose a social challenge despite the state’s legal and awareness measures. The Jharkhand High Court had earlier identified Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Simdega, Lohardaga, Garhwa, Latehar, Dumka, Deoghar and West Singhbhum among the state’s most affected districts while considering an action plan to eradicate witch-hunting.
Recent reporting also shows that the problem has not disappeared. A 2026 investigation citing NCRB data reported that 22 of the 74 witch-hunting-related killings recorded across India in 2023 were in Jharkhand, the highest number among states. It also reported a witch-hunting-related killing in Khunti in 2025.
In July 2026, a witch-hunting-related assault case in Ranchi district again led to an arrest, highlighting that such incidents continue to surface despite legal provisions and awareness campaigns.
Jharkhand has had legislation against witch-hunting since 2001, but the persistence of such cases underlines that legislation alone cannot eliminate a practice rooted in superstition, fear and social prejudice. Effective enforcement, education, awareness, access to healthcare and timely protection for vulnerable people remain crucial.
Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony upheld
On the legal issue, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no requirement for a particular number of witnesses to establish a criminal charge. A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if that evidence is found to be reliable, credible and trustworthy. The Court emphasised that the quality of evidence matters more than its quantity.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the deceased’s daughter should be treated as an unreliable witness merely because she was a close relative. It held that being related to the deceased does not by itself make a witness an “interested witness”.
The Court ultimately dismissed Balku Oram’s appeal and upheld his conviction and life sentence. It concluded by hoping that the case would serve as a solemn reminder that justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs.
