Facts
On 17.02.1998, Puni Naik was dragged from her house and brutally assaulted by the appellant and co-accused, allegedly on the accusation of practising witchcraft. P.W.3, the deceased’s daughter, witnessed the assault. Puni Naik died from the injuries. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues Framed
Implied Issue: Whether the conviction under S.302 read with S.34 IPC was sustainable on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, despite her relationship with the deceased, the alleged contradictions and delay in FIR, and whether the offence could be reduced to S.304 Part I or Part II IPC on the ground of grave and sudden provocation.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Scope of interference under Art.136 Const. of India. The Court reiterated that in criminal appeals it does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional circumstances. Interference is warranted where the High Court has acted “perversely or otherwise improperly”, or where the appreciation of evidence is manifestly erroneous or unsupported by the record. (Paras 15–16)
(b) Sole eyewitness. The testimony of P.W.3 was found natural, cogent and trustworthy. The Court held that “what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses.” Under S.134 IEA, there is no requirement of a particular number of witnesses. A conviction can therefore rest upon the testimony of a sole witness when that testimony is wholly reliable. (Paras 19–22)
(c) Related witness. P.W.3’s relationship with the deceased did not render her an interested witness. A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be treated as interested merely because of the relationship. The Court found her testimony duly corroborated by the medical evidence. (Paras 23–25)
(d) S.302 versus S.304 IPC. Applying Pulicherla Nagaraju, the Court considered the nature and location of injuries, the force employed and the overall circumstances. The deceased had grievous injuries on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts. These injuries manifested a clear intention to cause death. No exception to S.300 IPC was established. Hence, conversion to S.304 Part I or Part II IPC was rejected. (Paras 26–28)
(e) FIR delay. The delay was satisfactorily explained. P.W.3 was only 15–16 years old and had witnessed the brutal killing of her mother. The Court considered it natural that she would have been in shock and would approach the police only after her maternal uncle came to assist her. (Paras 29–30)
Held
The direct evidence against the appellant was compelling and established that he and the co-accused had brutally murdered the deceased. The conviction and sentence under S.302 read with S.34 IPC were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion
“there exists no legal impediment on convicting solely on the basis of that since what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses.”
Relevant Para
20. When there is a direct evidence in the form of a sole eyewitness testimony, there exists no legal impediment on convicting solely on the basis of that since what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 852
Decided on: 13 August 2026
Case Title: Balku Oram v. State of Odisha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra J., N.V. Anjaria J.