Supreme Court of India· 13 August 2026

Does the fact that the sole eyewitness to a murder is a close relative of the deceased — such as her daughter — by itself make her an interested witness whose testimony cannot sustain a conviction?

BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA

2026 INSC 852 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2298 OF 2026
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; N.V Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. A close relative who is a natural witness to the occurrence is not, without more, an interested witness. That status requires proof that the witness has a direct motive, personal animosity, or other reason to falsely implicate the accused; the mere fact of relationship does not impeach the witness's evidence.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II, s.34 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Murder — Sole eyewitness testimony — Interested witness — Delay in FIR — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Sole eyewitness testimony — Quality over quantity — Held: Direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, if natural, cogent and trustworthy, can alone sustain a murder conviction without corroboration. The court weighs the quality, not the quantity, of evidence necessary to prove a fact. (¶19, 20) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Related witness — Interested witness distinguished — Held further: A witness's relationship to the deceased, without more, does not make her an interested witness; that status requires proof of direct motive, personal animosity or other reason to falsely implicate the accused. A natural witness who is a close relative remains reliable. (¶23, 24, 25) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II — Intention to kill — Held further: Whether an act is murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I or II turns on intention, gathered from the weapon used, the vital part targeted and premeditation. Injuries on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts evidence intent to kill. (¶26, 27, 28) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Delay in FIR — Explained delay not fatal — Held further: A delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution's case once it stands well-explained; here, the daughter's shock upon witnessing her mother's killing explains the delay. Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence for murder affirmed. (¶29, 30, 37)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 23During the hearings before this Court, it was contended that P.W.3 being the daughter of the deceased, falls within the bracket of a related/interested witness; hence, her sole testimony cannot be relied upon for sustaining the conviction of the appellant.

Paragraph 24This Court in the case of Shio Shankar Dubey and Others v. State of Bihar[^6], while referring to its earlier decisions, clarified that a witness can be regarded as an interested witness only when it can be shown that such witness has direct motive, personal animosity or any other reason to falsely implicate the accused person. Ultimately, the credibility of every witness has to be determined keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In Shio Shankar Dubey (supra), this Court observed thus:

Paragraph 25In the light of the aforesaid precedents, the contention of the appellant in our view is devoid of any merit since it is well settled that a mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness interested or unreliable. A close relative, who is a natural witness, cannot be equated with an interested witness merely because of such relationship. In the facts of the present case, the direct testimony of P.W.3 has been duly corroborated with medical evidence which further establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Acts & Sections

s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.304 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.300 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.134 Indian Evidence Act, 1872Art.136 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can a murder conviction rest solely on the direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, without corroboration from any other witness?What factors determine whether an accused's act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II?Does a delay in lodging the first information report, by itself, defeat the prosecution's case in a criminal trial?What is the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court in a criminal appeal?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections