Supreme Court cites Ambedkar on witch-hunting in murder case
This case involves a criminal appeal by Balku Oram against his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Puni Naik, which the prosecution alleged was committed due to accusations of witchcraft. The Supreme Court examined whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court regarding the eyewitness testimony and the nature of the offense were correct.
Petitioner/Appellant: Balku Oram; Respondent: State of Odisha; Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
- The Court analyzed the scope of its power under Article 136 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in criminal appeals.
- The Court noted that it generally does not interfere with concurrent findings save in exceptional circumstances, such as when the High Court acted perversely or the evidence is highly unsafe.
- The Court evaluated the testimony of P.W.3 (the sole eyewitness and daughter of the deceased) as direct ocular evidence.
- The Court observed that P.W.3 remained unshaken in her testimony regarding the identity of the assailants and the brutality inflicted on the deceased.
Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.
The original document
Document details
| Official title | Practices Like Witch-Hunting Still Persist; Superstition Supersedes Constitutional Morality, Laments Supreme Court |
| Source body | Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments |
| Reference number | — |
| Status | closed (order) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Closing date | — |
| Documents | 1 |