‘Reason Is The Only Bulwark Against Collective Irrationality’: Supreme Court On Witch-Hunting

The Supreme Court recently observed the malady of witch hunting still plagues sections of our society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersede the rule of law and constitutional morality, as it upheld the conviction of a man for killing a woman for allegedly practising witchcraft.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Balku Oram against the September 29, 2022 judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which had upheld his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Puni Naik.

The incident dates back to February 17, 1998, when Oram and co-accused Udai Oram allegedly went to Puni Naik's house, dragged her out and took her near the house of Manobodha Naik. They then severely assaulted her with a lathi.

The assault was witnessed by Puni Naik's daughter, who was 15-16 years old at the time. Puni Naik died in the early hours of February 18, 1998.

According to the prosecution, the woman was attacked and killed on the allegation that she had caused the death of Manobodha Naik's youngest daughter by practising witchcraft.

Why did the Supreme Court condemn witch hunting?

The bench said the brutality associated with witch hunting extends far beyond the act of killing. Victims, mostly women, are subjected to torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracisation, as superstitious beliefs and irrational fears are allowed to take precedence over the rule of law.

"Sometimes in the most difficult situations, it often becomes an easy escape to blame a woman for the acts she did not commit, thus reflecting a deeply rooted social prejudice that often seeks scapegoats rather than solutions," the Bench said.

It observed that in such situations, "reason" must be given precedence as it is "the only virtue that stands as a bulwark against collective irrationality."

Quoting Dr B R Ambedkar, Court said, “A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society".

Court said the Constitution envisions a society founded on equality, fraternity and scientific temperament, where practices derogatory to women must be discarded.

"Despite this, practices such as witch-hunting continue to persist within few sections of our society. A constitutional democracy such as ours cannot survive; wherein such derogatory practices continue to elude the principles of rule of law and constitutional morality," the Bench said.

Court further said the facts of the case had "deeply disturbed the conscience" of the court, particularly because a defenseless woman had been branded a practitioner of witchcraft and her daughter had to witness her mother being killed in a brutal manner.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold Oram's conviction?

The Bench found the direct evidence against Oram compelling and said it clearly established that he and the co-accused had inflicted the fatal assault on Puni Naik.

Court relied on the testimony of Puni Naik's daughter, who remained consistent during both her chief examination and cross-examination about the identity of the assailants.

"It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence 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," the Bench said.

It rejected Oram's argument that the daughter should not be treated as a reliable witness merely because she was related to the deceased.

A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be treated as an interested witness merely because of the relationship, Court said. It added that her testimony was also corroborated by medical evidence, establishing Oram's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench therefore held that both the trial court and the high court had correctly assessed Oram's culpability and that his conviction and sentence deserved to be affirmed.

Why did the court reject the plea to reduce the conviction?

The Supreme Court also rejected Oram's plea to convert his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC [now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II (now Section 105 of the BNS).

The Bench pointed to the grievous injuries inflicted on Puni Naik's head, neck, chest and other vital parts of the body, saying they manifested a clear intention to cause her death.

"There is nothing to prove on record that the case attracts any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC," it said.

Why did the delay in lodging the FIR not help Oram?

Court also rejected the argument that the one-day delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution case.

The incident occurred at around 7 pm on February 17, 1998, while the matter was reported at the police station at about 11 am the next day.

The Bench noted that the sole eyewitness was only 15-16 years old and had witnessed the brutal assault and murder of her mother. It was only after her maternal uncle came to the house that she mustered the courage to go to the police station and lodge the FIR.

"Thus, it would not have been expected from the daughter to run to the concerned Police Station in the night itself. Keeping in view these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR has been well-explained," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed Oram's appeal and affirmed his conviction and life sentence.

The Bench hoped that the case would serve as a reminder that justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs, observing that practices such as witch-hunting cannot be allowed to undermine the rule of law and constitutional morality.