A constitutional democracy cannot survive if derogatory practices such as witch-hunting continue to elude the principles of rule of law and constitutional morality,
NEW DELHI — A constitutional democracy cannot survive if derogatory practices such as witch-hunting continue to elude the principles of rule of law and constitutional morality, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
The apex court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man who, along with a co-accused, had dragged a woman from her house and assaulted her in 1998 while branding her as a practitioner of witchcraft in Odisha. The woman died due to the assault.
"While parting with the case, we would just like to say that the facts of the present case has deeply disturbed the conscience of this court, wherein a defenseless woman was branded as a practitioner of witchcraft and what effect it must have had on the daughter of the deceased who had to witness her mother being killed in the most brutal way," a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said.
It said the Constitution of India envisioned a society founded on the principles of equality, fraternity, scientific temperament, wherein any practice derogatory to women was to be discarded.
The bench said despite this, practices such as witch-hunting continue to persist within few sections of the society.
Also Read: e-Courts Mission Mode Project speeds up disposal of cases
"A constitutional democracy such as ours cannot survive; wherein such derogatory practices continue to elude the principles of rule of law and constitutional morality," it said.
"This court fervently hopes that the present case serves as a solemn reminder that justice must always prevail over superstition and irrational beliefs," the bench said.
The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by one Balku Oram who had challenged a September 2022 order of the Orissa High Court.
The high court had affirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant by a trial court.
In its verdict, the apex court quoted Dr B R Ambedkar: "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."
The bench said it is true that the malady of witch-hunting still plagues sections of the society where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersedes the rule of law and constitutional morality.
"The brutality associated with witch-hunting extends far beyond the act of killing; where victims mostly women are subjected to torture, beatings, sexual violence and social ostracisation," it said.
The bench said in such a situation, superstitious beliefs or fears are given precedence leading to vulnerable women becoming victims of collective hostility.
"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," it said.
"In such situations, what can be given an ascendency is 'reason' for reason is the only virtue that stands as a bulwark against collective irrationality," the bench said.
Dealing with the case, the top court noted that the nature of direct evidence against the appellant was compelling and it clearly established that he, with the co-accused, brutally murdered the woman on the allegation of her causing death of a girl by practising witchcraft.
While dismissing the appeal, the bench affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant.
According to the prosecution, a girl in a village in Sundergarh district died in February 1998 and her family member claimed that she died on account of witchcraft practised by the victim.
The prosecution said that appellant and a co-accused dragged the victim from her house and assaulted her due to which she died. The incident was witnessed by the victim's daughter.
Based on a complaint filed by the victim's daughter, an FIR was registered.
The trial court convicted the appellant and the co-accused for the offences, including that of murder. The high court later affirmed the trial court order.
"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," the top court said.
It noted that the version of the victim's daughter about the manner of assault and the weapons used has remained consistent, credible enough to safely sustain conviction of the appellant.
The bench said a close relative, who is a natural witness, cannot be equated with an interested witness merely because of such relationship.