Quality Over Quantity: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Odisha Witch-Hunting Case on a Daughter’s Testimony

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction arising from a 1998 assault on a woman blamed for a child’s death through alleged witchcraft. It held that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, the sole eyewitness, was natural and trustworthy, that a relative is not automatically an ‘interested’ witness, and that the injuries showed an intention to cause death. The Court also condemned witch-hunting as incompatible with constitutional morality.

According to the prosecution, on 17 February 1998 the appellant and a co-accused dragged the victim from her house and assaulted her with a lathi; the family blamed her for the death of a young girl through alleged witchcraft. She died in the early hours of 18 February 1998. Her daughter (PW-3), accompanied by her maternal uncle, lodged a written complaint at 11 a.m. that day at PS Sector-15, Rourkela.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 29 September 2022 the High Court of Orissa dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court he argued that PW-3 was an interested witness, that the FIR was delayed, that her testimony had contradictions, and that the case fell under Section 304 IPC.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a murder conviction rest on the sole testimony of the deceased’s daughter, and was the offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

The Sole Eyewitness, the Delay and the Intention

Recalling the limited scope of Article 136 in concurrent findings, the Court found PW-3 unshaken in cross-examination. Following Vadivelu Thevar, (1957) 04 SC CK 0011 and Prithipal Singh, (2011) 11 SC CK 0063, it reiterated that “what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses.” Relying on Shio Shankar Dubey, (2019) 05 SC CK 0038 and Kartik Malhar, (1995) 11 SC CK 0011, it held that a relative who is a natural witness is not ‘interested’ merely by relationship, and her account was corroborated by the medical evidence.

Applying Pulicherla Nagaraju, (2006) 08 SC CK 0062, the Court held that grievous injuries on vital parts showed a clear intention to cause death and no exception to Section 300 was established. The one-day delay in the FIR was adequately explained: PW-3 was about 15–16, in shock, and went to the police after her maternal uncle arrived. The Court added that witch-hunting is incompatible with constitutional morality and human dignity, and that “justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs.”

What the Court Actually Held

• The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was affirmed.
• The sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.
• A related natural witness is not an interested witness merely because of the relationship.
• The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reaffirms that a conviction can rest on one reliable eyewitness.
• It addresses the defence of grave and sudden provocation in a group assault.
• It contains strong observations against witch-hunting.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Challenges to a sole eyewitness need material contradictions, not minor discrepancies.
• A Section 304 plea must be pleaded and proved through the Section 300 exceptions.

For Prosecutors

• Explain any FIR delay through the circumstances of the witness.
• Use medical evidence to corroborate a related eyewitness.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The deceased’s daughter, about 15–16 years old at the time.

The grievous injuries to vital parts showed an intention to cause death, and no exception to Section 300 was established.

The judgment condemns witch-hunting; the extracted text does not record specific directions on it.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →