Shekappa vs State Of Karnataka
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1189
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2102 OF 2011
Shekappa And Ors. …….Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka ……. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. V. Viswanathan, J.
1) Two women (PWs 17 and 18), who witnessed their
husbands being done to death in the middle of the night by
the appellants, unfolded their version of the macabre
incident. The Trial Court did not believe them. The High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, found their version
credible and being corroborated by medical evidence. The
acquittals were reversed and the appellants were convicted
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323, 341
read with Section 149 IPC. They were sentenced to life
imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 and to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA NEGI
Date: 2026.11.03
17:37:55 IST
Reason:
varying periods for the minor offences. Aggrieved, the
convicts are in appeal before us.
1
2) The two deceased in this case are Mallappa and
Gulappa. It transpires that six months prior to the date of the
incident, i.e., on 09.09.2001, a bull belonging to the Rudrappa
(A-2) had caused injury to the goat of Nagappa (PW-25) by
goring. PW-25 asked the appellant/A-2 to reimburse the
treatment expenses of Rs . 600/-. A-2 initially gave a goat to
PW-25 and asked him to retain the same till the amount was
paid. However, A-2 later on took away the goat and it is
alleged that in the process he also beat up the younger
brother of PW-25.
3) It is alleged that the two deceased and one Fakkirappa,
the elder brother of PW-25, along with PW-25 went and met
the appellants (except appellant No. 4) and were promised
by the said appellants that the matter would be settled.
Thereafter, it appears that all the persons met in the house of
the deceased and when A-2 was questioned by PW-25 as to
why he had taken the goat without informing, A-2 is supposed
to have retorted by saying that he will neither pay the amount
nor return the goat and PW-25 may do whatever he likes.
2
4) Thereafter, it appears that all the accused, except A-4,
came to the house of PW-25 and A-2 tried to assault PW-25
with an axe on his neck and when PW-25 tried to protect
himself, the blow fell on his right palm. According to the
prosecution, the appellants believed that it was the two
deceased who were responsible for inducing PW-25 to file
the complaint to the Police (Exh. P. 32).
5) It is alleged that it was in this background that the
present incident transpired during the intervening night of
08.09.2001 and 09.09.2001.
6) According to the version of Doddasiddavva (PW-17),
w/o deceased Mallappa and Siddavva @ Sannasiddavva
(PW-18), w/o deceased Gulappa, the incident occurred in the
following manner:-
Anasavva (PW-16), the mother of the deceased, her
husband Beerappa, the wives of both the deceased and the
deceased had finished their dinner at about 10:30 PM on
08.09.2001 and had gone to sleep. Beerappa, father of the
3
deceased had gone to the nearby temple to sleep. PW-17, her
11-month-old child and her deceased husband Mallappa
were sleeping on a raised platform in front of their house.
PW-18 and her deceased husband Gulappa had gone to
sleep in the cattle shed near their house which was 60 to 70
feet away from where deceased Mallappa slept. PW-16 and
the children of the deceased Mallappa were sleeping inside
the house and since the house was small, the others were
sleeping at different places outside. The adults in the family
did work as labourers for their livelihood.
7) According to the eyewitness accounts of PW-17 and PW-
18, at about 1:00 AM during the intervening night of
08.09.2001 and 09.09.2001, PW-17 heard the cry of her 11-
month-old child. When she woke up, she saw the accused
Shekappa (A-1), Rudrappa (A-2), Hanumappa (A-3) and
Gangappa (A-4) standing armed with axes. When she raised
an alarm, Yellappa (A-5), Suresh (A-6) held her legs and
Kenchappa (A-7) held her hands. At that time, Rudrappa (A-
2), assaulted Mallappa on his mouth with an axe and when
4
Mallappa raised his hand, Gangappa (A-4), assaulted
Mallappa with axe. Shekappa (A-1) assaulted Mallappa on
his neck.
8) When PW-17 started screaming and shouting, the
accused, after trying to assault her with axe, proceeded
towards the cattle shed to finish Gulappa after proclaiming
that they have finished Mallappa. PW-17 rushed behind
them.
9) According to PW-17, Anasavva (PW-16) and PW-16’s
husband-Beerappa also followed PW-17 to the cattle shed.
She saw Hanumappa (A-3) and Kenchappa (A-7) holding PW-
18. Yellappa (A-5) and Suresh (A-6) were standing in the
alley keeping a watch. Shekappa (A-1), Rudrappa (A-2) and
Gangappa (A-4) assaulted Gulappa with axe. The accused
persons also struck PW-18 on her forehead with the blunt
handle of axe and pushed her on to PW-17. All the accused
fled from the place of the incident.
5
10) It is alleged that after daybreak, PW-17 went to the
Police Station and lodged a written complaint (Exh. P.7). A
case was registered as Crime No. 74 of 2001.
11) Inquest was held as per Exh. P.14 and Exh. P.15.
Thereafter, the bodies of the deceased were sent to the
Public Health Centre, Navalgund, District Dharwad, for
conducting autopsy. Statements of some of the witnesses
were recorded. According to the prosecution, pursuant to the
statements of the accused, seizures were effected.
12) On 10.09.2001, arrest was effected of A-1, A-3, A-4 and
A-7 and recovery of the blood stained clothes of A-1 was
allegedly effected. Based on the voluntary statement, it is
claimed that axe was discovered. Pursuant to the voluntary
statement of A-1, A-3 and A-4, on 06.11.2001, A-2 and A-5
were arrested. Based on the statement, discovery of axe was
made. A-6 was thereafter arrested on 29.11.2001.
Investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed on
6
03.12.2001. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 27 and
marked Exhs. P.1 to P.38 and produced M.O. Nos. 1 to 24.
13) Dr. Junjeshwar (PW-19) conducted the post-mortem of
both the deceased between 3.10 PM and 5.00 PM on
09.09.2001. The following injuries were noticed on the
deceased Mallappa:-
“1) Incised wound on the neck, transversely situated at the
lower part of the neck extending from front to back. Whole
neck was separated from the body except four inch skin
was holding to get attached to the body on the back of the
neck.
2) Incised wound at the mouth on left side measuring 3' x
1". Skin was hanging and there was a fracture of left
mandible.
3) There was an amputation of left forefinger at the level of
proximal phalynx.
4) Incised wound on the dorsum of the left palm,
transversely situated measuring 4'x 1" muscle deep. The
said injury was at the level of ring and middle finger.”
14) On the deceased Gulappa, the following injuries were
found:-
“1) Incised wound on the neck transversely situated at the
lower part of the neck, extending from right to the left.
Whole neck was separated from the body except three
inch breadth skin was holding i.e. attached to the body on
the left side of the neck below the ear. Length of the
wound was all around the neck.
7
2) Incised wound on the right side of the face, transversely
situated starting from the middle of the nose to the ear
label measuring 10' in length and depth of the wound was
4" and it is connected to injury no. l.
3) There was compound fracture of the whole mandible
with hanging of the skin over it was present.
4) Fracture of upper jaw at the middle.
5) Verticle incised wound at the left front part of the
shoulder measuring 4' x 2'x2".
6) Incised wound below the left clavicle measuring 21 1/2"
to 1"x 1/2 ".
7) Middle finger was amputated at distal phalynx on the
left side.
8) Incised wound incident to injury no.6 measuring 2"x 1"
x1".
9) Fracture of left clavicle was present.”
15) It was opined that the injuries were antemortem in
nature and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage
caused by the injuries on the neck. Exhs. P.25 and P.27 post-
mortem reports were issued. The Trial Court found that the
prosecution had established that the death of Mallappa and
Gulappa were homicidal in nature. The High Court having
confirmed the same, we find no reason to dislodge the said
finding.
8
16) The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of the
Trial Court. The High Court has summarized the reasons for
which the Trial Court recorded the judgment of acquittal by
setting them out as follows: -
“i) PW's.22 and 25 are not eyewitnesses to the incident.
ii) The recovery of weapons is not proper.
iii) The presence of PW.25 of doubtful. If PW.25 was
present on the scene of occurrence, the accused did not
have spared him as he had filed a complaint against them.
iv) There is a delay in lodging the complaint and due to
the deliberation between PW.25 and the wife of deceased
to falsely implicate the accused.
v) PW's.16, 17 and 18 did not inform the occurrence of
offence to other villagers.
vi) The injury of PW.18 is simple in nature and the chances
of sustaining injury by any other means other than assault
was always there.
vii) No independent witnesses have been examined.
viii) time of death varies. The opinion of PW.19 who
conducted the autopsy on the dead body and according
to PW .19, there is gap of 04:00 hours between murder of
deceased Mallappa and Gulappa.
ix) PW's. 17 and 18, being the wives of deceased Mallappa
and Gulappa, there is discrepancy in their evidence. The
conduct of these witnesses is not natural and their
evidence is not acceptable.
x) The prosecution has not proved the source of light
under which PW's.16, 17, 18 and other witnesses have
witnessed the incident.
xi) As per the evidence of PW.19, there is a time gap of
04.00 hours between the murder of Mallappa and
Gulappa. The murder of Mallappa took place at about
9
01.30 a.m., on 08/09.09.2001 and that of Gulappa took
place at about 05.00 a.m. on 09.09.201 (sic) and nobody
had witnessed the commission of offence.
xii) Since PW's.21, 23 and 25 are all interest witnesses,
their evidence is not reliable.
xiii) In the complaint, PW.17 has referred to the presence
of PW's 16, 21, 22 and 25. PW.25 was responsible for falsely
implicating the accused, as he had grudge on the accused
and he was closely following the trial of the case filed
against the accused.
xiv) The documents marked as per Ex.P30 to P33 did not
establish motive.
xv) The names of eyewitnesses in Column N0.7 of the
Inquest form are not found and evidence also discloses
that the deceased had many enemies in their village and
the deceased might have been murdered by someone
else.”
17) We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State. We have also
called for the original records from the Trial Court and
perused the same. The learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants reiterated the contention advanced before the
Courts below and took us to the relevant part of the records.
The learned Additional Advocate General defended the
judgment.
10
18) We have carefully considered the contentions of the
learned counsel on both sides.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING APPEAL(S) AGAINST
ACQUITTALS: -
19) We are conscious that the High Court was hearing an
appeal against an acquittal. We have also perused the
reasons for the acquittal. The High Court was also conscious
of the fact that it was hearing an appeal against acquittal and
it recorded that the reasoning given by the Trial Court was
wholly unreasonable, perverse and not based on the record.
The High Court also recorded that judgment of the Trial
Court suffered from serious illegality and misreading the
entire evidence.
20) In Arulvelu and Another vs. State Represented by the
Public Prosecutor and Another , (2009) 10 SCC 206, this Court
held that in a case of appeal against acquittal, the Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded.
The only caveat was that where two reasonable conclusions
11
are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the
Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court. Further, to set aside judgment of
acquittal, the Appellate Court should arrive at a clear finding
that the judgment of the Court below acquitting the accused
was clearly perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
21) We have perused the judgment of the Trial Court and
the reasons recorded by it for acquittal. To say the least, the
Trial Court has discarded crucial evidence that was available
to clearly implicate the appellants and has glorified the non-
essential 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. No two
views are possible in this case, and the only view possible is
the guilt of the appellants.
12
ROLE OF MOTIVE IN CASES OF DIRECT EVIDENCE: -
22) It is fairly well settled that motive pales into
insignificance where there is direct evidence which is
trustworthy. In this case, not only is there the direct evidence
of PWs 17 and 18, but the motive also stands established. As
set out above, pursuant to the bull belonging to Rudrappa (A-
2) causing injury to the goat of Nagappa (PW-25), there was
enmity between PW-25 and the accused party. It has also
come in evidence that the deceased Mallappa and Gulappa
had taken the side of PW-25 in the said dispute. There was a
meeting at the residence of the deceased where A-2 was
questioned about taking away the goat left by A-2 with PW-25
as an interim arrangement till the payment of adequate
compensation. It had also come in evidence that the
complaint (Exh. P.32) was lodged by PW-25 when the accused
party tried to assault PW-25 as a sequel to the said talks.
23) In this background, the Trial Court was not justified in
totally brushing aside the aspect of motive. In any event, in
view of the clinching evidence of Doddasiddavva (PW-17),
13
wife of deceased Mallappa and Siddavva (PW-18), wife of
deceased Gulappa, there is no manner of doubt that
appellants were indeed responsible for the attack on the
deceased and their consequential death.
RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY ACCOUNT OF PWS 17 &
18: -
24) At the outset, it must be noticed that accused party and
the deceased family were known to each other. PW-17 has
clearly deposed that on the day of the incident she, her
husband and her infant child were sleeping on the raised
platform in front of their house. Her mother-in-law PW-16 was
sleeping inside the house along with the grandchildren. Her
father-in-law, Beerappa, was sleeping in the temple.
25) PW-17 also deposed that her brother-in-law, deceased
Gulappa, was sleeping in the cattle shed along with his wife.
She clearly spoke of electricity being available and there is
evidence, in the form of Exh. P.9, to the effect that there was
electricity supply in the area of the incident. PW-17 deposed
that, during the intervening night of 08.09.2001 and
14
09.09.2001, at about 10:00 or 10:30 PM, food was prepared
and all of them had dinner; that after finishing dinner, PW-17,
her husband Mallappa and her infant child slept on the
raised platform; that the electric light in front of the door was
burning; that around 1:00 AM in the night the child cried as
someone stepped on its legs; that when she woke up, she saw
Yellappa (A-5) and Suresh (A-6) catching hold of her legs;
and Kenchappa (A-7) holding her hand. PW-17 deposed that
Rudrappa (A-2) assaulted her husband on his mouth with the
axe which he was holding; that after receiving the axe blow
on the mouth when Mallappa raised his hand Gangappa (A-4)
assaulted Mallappa’s left hand with axe; Shekappa (A-1)
assaulted on Mallappa’s neck with an axe; that there was
profuse bleeding from her husband’s body and she started
weeping loudly. PW-17 deposed that hearing her, Anasavva
(PW-16) came out from inside the house. PW-17 deposed that
the accused persons uttered that they have finished off
Mallappa and if Gulappa is spared he will become a nuisance
15
and that he should be finished. Thereafter, the accused
persons ran towards the cattle shed with the axes.
26) Thereafter, PW-17 deposed that she, along with her
mother-in-law and father-in-law (who had heard the scream
and arrived from the temple) proceeded towards the cattle
shed. PW-17 no doubt speaks of Nagappa (PW-25), Mallappa
(PW-22) and Basavva (PW-21) also coming behind her.
27) What is important however, is that PW-17 clearly
deposes that when she reached near the cattle shed,
Kenchappa (A-7) and Hanumappa (A-3) firmly caught hold of
PW-18 Siddamma’s hands; that Yellappa (A-5) and Suresh (A6)
were standing in the alley keeping a watch; that Shekappa (A-
1), Rudrappa (A-2), Gangappa (A-4) assaulted Gulappa with
an axe; that PW-18 was pushed towards PW-17 and PW-18 was
struck on the right side of her forehead with the blunt handle
of the axe. Thereafter, PW-17 disposed that the accused fled
away and that Mallappa and Gulappa died due to the injuries.
PW-17 speaks of lodging a complaint Exh. P.7.
16
28) Similarly, PW-18 the wife of the deceased Gulappa, after
adverting to the incident which was the motive, spoke of the
incident that happened during the night intervening
08.09.2001 and 09.09.2001. Like PW-17, she spoke about how
the families slept in different parts of the house. Thereafter,
PW-18 deposed that in the middle of the night, at 1:00 am, she
heard the sound of people running; that she woke up and saw
Shekappa (A-1) holding an axe in his hand with blood stains;
that blood had splattered on his shirt; that Rudrappa (A-2)
also had an axe in his hand which also had blood on it and
there was blood on his shirt as well. PW-18 spoke of
Gangappa (A-4) having an axe with blood stains and stains
on his clothes. When PW-18 started screaming, Kenchappa
(A-7) and Hanumappa (A3) came running and tightly held
her mouth; that Shekappa (A-1) struck her husband’s neck
with an axe; Gangappa (A-4) struck her husband near the
mouth with axe and Rudrappa (A-2) struck her husband’s
neck with axe.
17
29) PW-18 deposed further that Yellappa (A-5) and Suresh
(A-6) were standing and exhorting to chop off Gulappa. PW-
18 speaks of PW-17, PW-16 mother-in-law, father-in-law
Beerappa and PW-25 Nagappa and others who came running
there, at which point the accused persons pushed her aside
and Hanumappa (A-3) assaulted her forehead and neck with
the wooden handle of the axe. Thereafter, PW-18 stated that
the accused persons fled away.
30) Dr. Junjeshwar (PW-19) examined PW-18 and noticed a
swelling on the forehead on the right-side measuring 1” x 1”
and recorded that she complained of pain in the neck. The
Doctor opined that the injury was simple and was caused by
a hard and blunt object and that the injury was fresh. The
Doctor confirmed that the said injury can be caused if a
person is assaulted with the handle of an axe. Exh. P.23
wound certificate was issued.
31) PW-17 and PW-18 are natural witnesses. They are
spouses of the deceased, and it is only natural that they were
18
together with the deceased considering that the incident
occurred in the middle of the night. The accused were known
to the witnesses, and they have graphically described as to
what transpired. The overt acts attributed to each other were
clearly brought out and nothing has been elicited in cross
examination to shake the credibility of their testimonies. The
Trial Court over emphasized on minor contradictions which
have no significance whatsoever. The core of their evidence
is that the two witnessed the brutal assault of their spouses.
There is evidence to the effect that electricity light was
available. To discard Exh. P.9, which is a Certificate given by
the Assistant Executive Engineer (PW-10), the Trial Court has
embarked upon a convoluted form of reasoning.
The Certificate Exh. P.9 is to the following effect: -
“That it is hereby informed that on 9/9/2001 at about
1.30 to 1.35 a.m, there was supply of electricity at
Belavatgi Village”
PW-10, who was the Assistant Executive Engineer, Navalgund
has clearly deposed that after confirming the records of his
19
office, he has furnished information in his letter stating that
there was supply of light during that night. No doubt, PW-10,
after stating that he verified the records of Navalgund AEB
Station with regard to the supply between 1.30 and 1.35 AM,
on being asked whether there was supply before 1.30 AM, he
stated that there was supply throughout that night from 10.00
p.m. to 6.00 a.m. As a sequel to this answer, it was added that
he had enquired with another Assistant Executive Engineer,
who was in charge of Navalgund sub-station of KEB, on
telephone and he himself did not verify the records
personally. He expressly denied the suggestion that there
was no power supply between 1.30 and 1.35 AM but also
denied the suggestion that he had not verified the records.
32) In any event, as rightly held by the High Court, having
known the accused persons, the witnesses can even identify
them by their voice and appearance. The High Court has also
relied on the evidence of PWs 16, 17 & 18 on the aspect that
there was light in front of the house of the deceased and has
held that since the accused were standing in close proximity
20
at the time of the incident there was absolutely no basis to
reject their testimony with regard to the identity of the
accused. Notwithstanding the finding of the Trial Court on
the reliability of Exh.P.9 and the evidence of PW-10, the role
of the accused in the overt act is clearly spoken to by PWs 17
& 18.
33) We are also not impressed with the submission on
behalf of the appellants that PWs 17 & 18, being widows of
the deceased, are interested witnesses and that their
evidence is to be discarded. It is well settled that merely
because a witness is a related witness, that witness need not
be an interested or a partisan witness. We found the
evidence of PWs 17 & 18, natural and trustworthy. Keeping in
mind the overall facts and circumstances, we have not been
persuaded to hold them to be interested or partisan
witnesses, warranting jettisoning of their evidence. We have
absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 17
and 18.
21
SCOPE OF INQUEST: -
34) Much was made out of the fact, by the Trial Court, that in
the Inquest Panchnama, the names of eyewitnesses were not
disclosed. The High Court has rightly rejected this
submission.
35) Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for
short ‘the Cr.P.C.’, now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is intended to make a report after
investigation into the apparent cause of death of the
individual, describing such wounds, fractures, and other
marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in
what manner, or by what weapon and instrument such marks
appear to have been inflicted. As held by this Court in
Radha Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb and Ors. vs. State of U.P. ,
(2006) 2 SCC 450, details about the overt acts, or as to how
the deceased was assaulted and who assaulted the deceased,
or under what circumstances the assault was occasioned and
who were the witnesses to the assault, are foreign to the
22
concept of inquest proceedings. The scope of Section 174 of
Cr.P.C. is very limited. It is to determine whether a person
has died under suspicious circumstances or whether the
death was unnatural and if so, what was the apparent cause of
death. A testimony of an eyewitness cannot be discarded on
the ground that their names did not appear in the inquest
report.
36) In Radha Mohan Singh (supra,) this Court held as
under:
“13. The provision for holding of inquest is contained in
Section 174 CrPC and the heading of the section is Police to
enquire and report on suicide, etc. Sub-sections (1) and (2)
thereof read as under:
“174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. —
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or
some other police officer specially empowered by
the State Government in that behalf receives
information that a person has committed suicide,
or has been killed by another or by an animal or
by machinery or by an accident, or has died under
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that
some other person has committed an offence, he
shall immediately give intimation thereof to the
nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold
inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any
rule prescribed by the State Government, or by
any general or special order of the District or Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place
where the body of such deceased person is, and
23
there, in the presence of two or more respectable
inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an
investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent
cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures,
bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found
on the body, and stating in what manner, or by
what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks
appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police
officer and other persons, or by so many of them
as concur therein, and shall be forthwith
forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate.”
14. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is
plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An
investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is
confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of
death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given
case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or
caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon
or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been
inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons
acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and
examined under Section 175. The details of the overt acts
are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The
question regarding the details as to how the deceased
was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted or who are the
witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and
scope of proceedings under Section 174. Neither in
practice nor in law is it necessary for the person
holding the inquest to mention all these details.
15. In Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. [(1975) 4 SCC 153 :
1975 SCC (Cri) 427 : AIR 1975 SC 1252] it was held that the
proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope.
The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain
whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances
or an unnatural death and if so, what is the apparent cause
of the death. The question regarding the details as to
how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him
or under what circumstances he was assaulted is
24
foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under
Section 174. Neither in practice, nor in law, was it
necessary for the police to mention those details in the
inquest report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter
all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report.
Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution
out of Court. In Shakila Khader v. Nausheer Cama [(1975) 4
SCC 122 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 379 : AIR 1975 SC 1324] the
contention raised that non-mention of a person's name in
the inquest report would show that he was not an
eyewitness of the incident was repelled on the ground that
an inquest under Section 174 CrPC is concerned with
establishing the cause of death and only evidence
necessary to establish it need be brought out. The same
view was taken in Eqbal Baig v. State of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC
476 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 232 : AIR 1987 SC 923] that the non-
mention of name of an eyewitness in the inquest report
could not be a ground to reject his testimony. Similarly, the
absence of the name of the accused in the inquest report
cannot lead to an inference that he was not present at the
time of commission of the offence as the inquest report is
not the statement of a person wherein all the names (the
accused and also the eyewitnesses) ought to have been
mentioned. The view taken in Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P.
[(1975) 4 SCC 153 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 427 : AIR 1975 SC 1252]
was approved by a three-Judge Bench in Khujji v. State of
M.P. [(1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 916 : AIR 1991 SC
1853] and it was held that the testimony of an eyewitness
could not be discarded on the ground that their names did
not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest
point of time. The nature and purpose of inquest held under
Section 174 CrPC was also explained in Amar Singh v.
Balwinder Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] . In
the said case the High Court had observed that the fact that
the details about the occurrence were not mentioned in the
inquest report showed that the investigating officer was not
sure of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and
the said feature of the case carried weight in favour of the
accused. After noticing the language used in Section 174
CrPC and earlier decisions of this Court it was ruled that
the High Court was clearly in error in observing as
aforesaid or drawing any inference against the prosecution.
25
Thus, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very
limited viz. to ascertain as to whether a person has
committed suicide or has been killed by another or by
an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has
died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an
offence. There is absolutely no requirement in law of
mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused
or the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of their
statements, nor is it required to be signed by any
eyewitness. In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1994) 5 SCC
188 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1391] the language used by the
legislature in Section 174 CrPC was not taken note of, nor
the earlier decisions of this Court were referred to and
some sweeping observations have been made which are
not supported by the statutory provision. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that the observations made in paras 11 and
12 of the reports do not represent the correct statement of
law and they are hereby overruled. The challenge laid to
the prosecution case by Shri Jain on the basis of the alleged
infirmity or omission in the inquest report has, therefore, no
substance and cannot be accepted.”
[Emphasis supplied]
37) We are also not impressed with the finding of the Trial
Court that PWs 16, 17 and 18 did not inform the occurrence to
other villagers, or that no independent witness has been
examined. Considering the time of the incident, the
witnesses examined were the most natural witnesses and PW-
18, it should not be forgotten, is also an injured witness. The
fact that PW-17 mentioned about the presence of certain
other individuals, who may not have the character of an
26
eyewitness, does not, on facts, detract from the fact that PWs
17 and 18 were eyewitnesses. Further, the injuries noticed on
the deceased and spoken to by Dr. Junjeshwar (PW-19) amply
corroborate the version of PW-17 and PW-18 on all material
aspects.
INFERENCE BASED ON DIGESTIVE PROCESS: -
38) One other aspect, which weighed with the Trial Court,
was the deposition of the Dr. Junjeshwar (PW-19) about the
probable time gap of four hours between the death of
Mallappa and Gulappa. The Trial Court relied on the
evidence of PW-19, who had answered to a question, asked
by the court, in the following manner:-
“I. Court Question:
If Mallappa and Gulappa had taken food
together and taking into consideration
the contents of stomach of Mallappa and
Gulappa whether both of them were
murdered at same time or whether there
was difference of time in their death?
II. Answer:
Taking into consideration of contents of
stomach of Mallappa and Gulappa,
provided, if they had taken meals
27
together, in my opinion, Gulappa died
Four hours after Mallappa died.
III. Cross examination by learned PP:
Now I see Ex.P.25. On the basis of
stomach contents, contents Ex.P.25
Mallappa - might have taken his last meal
2 or 3 hours prior to his death. Now I see
Ex .P.27. After seeing the contents of
small intestine mentioned in Ex.P.27.
Gulappa might have taken his last meal 6
to 8 hours prior to his death. Only on the
basis of contents of small intestine the
opinion regarding time since death after
last meal, cannot be given. It is false to
suggest that the stomach get emptied
between 3 1/2 hours to 4 hours time.
IV. Cross by Sri KMS:
In this case death of both Mallappa and
Gulappa is instantaneous.”
We must notice here that the Doctor PW-19 in the earlier part
of the testimony had deposed as follows: -
“14. The stomach of Gulappa was empty. There was semi
digested fluid in the small intestine. Looking to the
contents of stomach and intestine of Gulappa, I say that he
must have died more than four hours after the last meal.
Looking to the contents of the stomach of deceased
Malappa he must have died within four hours after his last
meal.”
39) The Trial Court recorded the following finding: -
“.... I do not find any reason to disbelieve the opinion
expressed by P.W. 19 Dr. Junjeshwar to the Court question
28
that there was gap of four hours between the death of
Mallappa and Gulappa. It is the case of the prosecution and
also evidence of eye witnesses that death of Mallappa and
Gulappa were instantaneous.”
40) The High Court recorded the following findings while
reversing the Trial Court’s reasoning: -
“Looking at the question put by the court to P.W.19, it
appears that, it is not a simple question, which could be
answered. It is a complex question, while answering the
said question, Doctor-PW-19 has stated that, Gulappa must
have died four hours after Mallappa died. When he has
already referred as regard to the death of Mallappa and
Gulappa, stating that, Gulappa died four hours after the last
meal and Mallappa died within four hours of the last meal.
There is no discrepancy in his statement, however, in the
light of the question put by the court, he might have stated
that there is a gap of four hours between two deaths. The
trial court erred in relying on the same to disbelieve the
prosecution case. Learned Sessions Judge has taken this
discrepancy as ground to acquit the accused. The Apex
Court has repeatedly held that, when there is a direct
reliable ocular evidence as against the medical evidence,
the ocular evidence should be preferred. Even then, the
learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the ocular
evidence, more so the evidence of the widows, who have
lost their husbands. The findings of the learned trial Judge
does not stand to reason, as to how after murdering
Mallappa, the accused could wait for four hours and
commit the murder of Gulappa. Both incidents have taken
place near the house of the deceased. The learned trial
Judge has not even appreciated as to how can there be 4
hours gap between both the murder. It is not that the
murder of Mallappa had taken at one place and murder of
Gulappa had taken place at a quite distance place. Even
PW-19-Doctor has categorically stated that the contents of
stomach is one of the factors to ascertain the time of the
death of the person after lapse of last meal, that is not the
29
decisive factor and the trial court should not have relied
only on that stray sentence in the evidence of P.W.19 to
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge.”
We are inclined to agree with the finding of the High Court.
41) The eyewitness accounts clearly demonstrate that the
incident happened at around 1:00 AM during the night
intervening 08.09.2001 and 09.09.2001. Evidence is also
clear that food was prepared around 10:00 PM and thereafter
dinner was taken. The incidents were one after the other in
quick succession. The Trial Court has exclusively relied upon
the answer to a Court question given by the Doctor (PW-19)
and based on the inference about the digestive process, the
incident has been disbelieved.
42) In Nihal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab , [1964] 4
SCR 5, this Court held that the time required to digest food
varies depending on the nature of food taken, the digestive
capacity of the individual concerned, and his health at a
particular time. It is also well settled that when there are
acceptable eyewitnesses on record speaking clearly about
30
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. This
Court held as under:-
“….. Apart from the fact that the time required to digest
food varies depending upon the nature of the food
taken, the digestive capacity of the individual
concerned and his health at a particular time, it is also
not possible to rely upon such evidence unless there is
some definite evidence that the deceased had not taken
any substantial food within a few hours before his
death. Without such definite data, a Court cannot come to
any conclusion on the general habit of villagers taking
lunch at 1 p.m. and dinner at 7 p.m. The capacity to retain
urine for longer time than usual depends upon individual
habits. That apart this aspect of the case was not pursued in
the cross-examination of the doctor and no question was
put to her on the basis of the said two factors. The High
Court was, therefore, right in holding that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in giving undue
importance to the said circumstances.” (Page 13)
[Emphasis supplied]
43) This Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State
of Maharashtra , (1973) 2 SCC 793 adverting to the digestive
process and how far it can be conclusive, held as follows: -
“11. ..….. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, extracts from which
have been given by both the Courts, makes out that a
mixed diet of animal and vegetable foods, normally taken
by Europeans, takes 4 to 5 hours for complete digestion
while a vegetable diet, containing mostly farinaceous food
usually consumed by Indians, does not leave the stomach
completely within 6 to 7 hours after its ingestion. Indeed,
31
the learned author cautiously adds that the stomachic
contents cannot determine with precision the time of death
“in as much as the power of digestibility may remain in
abeyance for a long time in states of profound shock and
coma”. He also states “it must also be remembered that the
process of digestion in normal healthy persons may
continue for a time after death”. The learned Judges
reminded themselves of the imponderables pointed out
by Modi which makes the “digestive” testimony
inconclusive and, therefore, insufficient to contradict
positive evidence, if any, about the time of death. To
impute exactitude to a medical statement oblivious to
the variables noticed by experts and changes in dietary
habits is to be unfair to the science. We are not prepared
to run the judicial risk of staking the whole verdict on
nebulous medical observations. Given so according to
P.W. 5 deceased took tea some time after 12.30 p.m. when
they started for Bibi. At that time the possibility of his
having had something to eat is not ruled out. If so, the
medical evidence as to the time of death will not be
inconsistent with the post-mortem findings.”
[Emphasis supplied]
44) The attempt by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants 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.
45) Much was made out of the purported delay in lodging
the First Information Report Exh. P.6 and also of the so called
contradiction between the evidence of Doddasiddavva (PW-
17) and Somashekhar (PW-20), who helped PW-17 draft the
complaint. We have carefully examined the evidence of
32
Doddasiddavva (PW-17) and Somashekhar (PW-20) on the
aspect of the so-called contradiction. We find that there is no
contradiction whatsoever that is worth mentioning. PW-17
says that after the incident in the night, at 8:00 am she left for
the Police Station and though she gave information, the police
insisted on written complaint. While waiting she saw
Somashekhar (PW-20) passed by and requested him to lodge
the complaint. PW-20 states that he was proceeding to
Tehsildar’s office on that day when he met PW-17 on the way
and PW-17 requested him to write the complaint and as such
he wrote the complaint. In fact, as found by the High Court
this is a corroboration and not a contradiction.
46) Equally untenable is the argument on delay in lodging
of the FIR. We need to do no better than to set out the
findings of the High Court which we endorse on these
aspects:
“The complaint is registered at 10:00 a.m., on 09.09.2001
and the F.I.R. is received at 02:30 p.m., by the C.J.M.
Dharwad, who was Incharge Magistrate, Navalgund. Pw.17,
as regard to the delay, she has stated that on account of
death of her husband and Gulappa, all the family members
33
were grieving. The villagers had assembled at about 08:00
a.m., thereafter, PW.25-Nagappa, complainant~PW.17 and
another went to the Police Station and by the time they
reached Police Station it was 10:00 a.m. Though PW.17 gave
the information about the incident, the police insisted her
to give a written complaint, as such, they were waiting for
someone to write a complaint and when they saw PW.20
passing by, they requested him to write a complaint.
Accordingly, PW.20 wrote a complaint as per the
instructions of PW.17. PW.24, Police officer registered the
said complaint. It has come in the evidence of PW.17 that
there was no bus facility. The evidence of PW.20
substantially corroborate with the evidence of PW.17, he
has stated that at about 10 to 10:15 a.m., on 09.09.2001, he
was proceeding towards the office of the Tahsildar, PW.17
saw him and called and requested him to write a complaint
on her behalf. He wrote the complaint as per her
instruction. She understood the contents and put her thumb
impression. No doubt, the distance between the place of
occurrence and the Police Station is 6 kms but, it is a village
and the incident had taken place during night and two
deaths have taken place in the family, the villagers had
gathered at 08:00 a.m., there is nothing unnatural in the
evidence of Pw.17, circumstances stated are natural, the
trial court has held that the delay in filing the complaint has
resulted in deliberation and consultation with PW.25. This
finding is arrived by the trial court without appreciating the
evidence of PW.17.”
47) We are also not impressed by the reasoning of the Trial
Court to justify the acquittal that certain variations in the
deposition of PWs 17 and 18 were fatal to the prosecution
story or the further holding that PWs 22 and 25 did not have
the character of eyewitnesses. These aspects do not derogate
34
from the core aspect of the prosecution story which has been
clearly established by the evidence of PWs 17 and 18.
48) For the reasons stated above, we find no good ground to
interfere with the well-considered judgment of the High
Court. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed
to surrender forthwith, failing which, the Trial Court is
directed to take steps to take the appellants into custody.
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
……….........................J.
[ ARUN PALLI ]
New Delhi;
November 3, 2026
35