Supreme Court cites Ambedkar on witch-hunting in murder case

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.

Who it concerns: Petitioner/Appellant: Balku Oram; Respondent: State of Odisha; Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

What the court decided

• 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.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The Court cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s quote regarding a compassionate society at the beginning of the judgment.
• The Court noted that the appellant raised a defense of grave and sudden provocation (Section 304 IPC) but the State contended this was not proven and was raised at a belated stage.
• The Court highlighted discrepancies in the time of death recorded in the FIR versus the witness's cross-examination and the absence of axe injuries in the post-mortem report despite the witness's claim.