New Delhi, November 4: 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, Verdictum and Law Trend reported.

Source: Verdictum

A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli gave the ruling on November 3 in Shekappa and Others v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1189; Criminal Appeal No. 2102 of 2011), upholding the Karnataka High Court judgment that had reversed an acquittal and affirming the life sentences of the appellants for a double murder.

The case arose from the killing of brothers Mallappa and Gulappa during the night of September 8-9, 2001, in Belavatgi village. According to the prosecution, the deceased had sided with a villager, Nagappa (PW-25), in a dispute after a bull belonging to the second accused gored PW-25's goat. Around 1:00 AM, seven accused allegedly attacked Mallappa with axes as he slept outside his house and then killed Gulappa in a cattle shed. The widows of the two men — Doddasiddavva (PW-17) and Siddavva (PW-18) — were eyewitnesses, and PW-18 was also injured in the attack.

Source: Law Trend

The Trial Court had acquitted all the accused, relying heavily on the answer of the doctor (PW-19) to a court question that, based on stomach contents, Gulappa died four hours after Mallappa. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and to varying terms for the lesser offences.

Rejecting the defence argument, the Supreme Court said the attempt "to create a doubt on the prosecution case by falling back on the inconclusive digestive process is an argument which in itself, on facts, is very difficult to digest." It held that the Trial Court had discarded crucial evidence and "glorified the nonessential aspects," and that the widows' testimony was natural, trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence.

The Court also held that an eyewitness's name need not appear in the inquest report — the scope of an inquest under Section 174 CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS) is limited to the apparent cause of death — that a witness is not an interested or partisan witness merely because of a relationship with the deceased, that motive pales into insignificance where direct evidence is trustworthy, and that the delay in lodging the FIR had been satisfactorily explained.

Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu S. Patil appeared for the appellants and Additional Advocate General Avishkar Singhvi appeared for the State of Karnataka. Holding that "no two views are possible in this case, and the only view possible is the guilt of the appellants," the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to surrender forthwith, failing which the Trial Court must take them into custody.