Digestive Timing Cannot Be Sole Basis To Reject Oral Evidence Of Acceptable Eyewitnesses: Supreme Court
The Bench upheld the murder convictions Of 7 men, and held that omission of eyewitnesses’ names in inquest report, their relationship to the deceased and a delay in FIR do not dent credible ocular testimony.
The Supreme Court has held that where acceptable eyewitnesses speak clearly about the time of an incident, no conclusion can be based on probabilities of digestive timings, and such an inference cannot be the sole basis to reject oral evidence. Upholding the High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal, the Court affirmed the life sentences of the appellants for a double murder.
The Court further found that the Trial Court had misdirected itself on several fronts. It held that an eyewitness’s name need not appear in the inquest report, that a witness is not interested merely because of a relationship with the deceased, and that the FIR was not tainted by delay. It added that the direct account of two widows was “natural and trustworthy”.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli observed, “…when there are acceptable eyewitnesses on record speaking clearly about the time of the incident, no conclusion can be clearly based on probabilities of digestive timings and in any event, that cannot be the sole basis to reject the oral evidence”.
Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu S. Patil appeared for the appellants and Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
“…To say the least, the Trial Court has discarded crucial evidence that was available to clearly implicate the appellants and has glorified the nonessential aspects which in no manner dilute the direct eyewitness versions of the two spouses of the deceased PWs 17 and 18 respectively. We agree with the High Court that the judgment of the Trial Court was totally unsustainable and was in direct contradiction to the eyewitness accounts…”, the Bench further said.
The case arose from the killing of Mallappa and Gulappa during the night of September 8-9, 2001. The prosecution alleged that the appellants harboured enmity because the deceased had sided with a villager, PW-25, in a dispute over a goat injured by a bull belonging to the second accused. Around 1:00 AM, seven accused allegedly attacked Mallappa with axes as he slept outside his house, then went to a cattle shed and killed Gulappa. The widows, PWs 17 and 18, were the eyewitnesses, and PW-18 was also injured.
The Trial Court acquitted all accused. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court reversed the finding and convicted them under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and to varying terms for the lesser offences. The convicts then approached the Supreme Court.
The Court first reiterated that an appellate court can reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but should not disturb the acquittal where two reasonable views are possible. Finding that the Trial Court had discarded crucial evidence and “glorified the non-essential aspects,” it held that only one view was possible.
On the digestive process, the Court noted that the Trial Court had relied solely on the doctor’s answer to a Court question that Gulappa died four hours after Mallappa. It also held that such evidence is inconclusive. The incidents occurred in quick succession, and the argument was “very difficult to digest.”
On the inquest report, the Court held that Section 174 CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS) has a limited scope. It is confined to the apparent cause of death, and eyewitness names need not be recorded. The Court also held that motive “pales into insignificance” where direct evidence is trustworthy, and that the widows were natural witnesses, not partisan ones. It endorsed the High Court’s explanation for the delay in the FIR.
Finding no ground to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to surrender forthwith. Failing that, the Trial Court must take them into custody.
Cause Title: Shekappa And Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1189)
Appearances:
Appellants: Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Senior Counsel.
Respondent: Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General.