Two Widows’ Eyewitness Accounts Sway Supreme Court To Uphold 7 Men’s Murder Convictions Despite Doctor’s Four-Hour Death-Gap Estimate

The appellants were accused of attacking and killing Mallappa and Gulappa during the night of 8–9 September 2001.

The prosecution relied principally on the eyewitness accounts of the deceased men’s wives, PWs 17 and 18; PW 18 was also injured.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellants, citing concerns including the witnesses’ credibility, identification, delay in lodging the complaint, omissions in the inquest report, and medical evidence suggesting a time gap between the deaths.

On appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittals and convicted the appellants under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under Arulvelu v. State, an appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal may review and reassess the evidence; it should not disturb an acquittal where two reasonable views are possible, but may do so where the acquittal is perverse or wholly unsustainable.

Under Section 174 CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS), an inquest is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause and circumstances of death; omission of eyewitness or accused names does not, by itself, undermine their testimony, as explained in Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.

Where trustworthy direct evidence exists, motive is of reduced significance.

Medical estimates based on digestion are inherently variable and cannot ordinarily displace credible eyewitness evidence; the Court relied on Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court found that the Trial Court had disregarded the consistent, detailed accounts of PWs 17 and 18 and placed undue weight on peripheral discrepancies.

Their presence was natural, the assailants were known to them, PW 18’s injury was medically corroborated, and the injuries on both deceased were consistent with their accounts.

The omission of witness names from the inquest report was immaterial given the limited statutory purpose of an inquest.

The complaint’s timing was reasonably explained by the deaths, the gathering of villagers, and the need to find someone to write it; the evidence did not establish material delay or a contradiction between PWs 17 and 20.

The doctor’s opinion about the time between the deaths, based on digestive contents, was not conclusive and could not outweigh the direct eyewitness evidence.

The acquittal was therefore unsustainable, with no two reasonable views available on the evidence.

It directed the appellants to surrender forthwith; failing surrender, the Trial Court was directed to take steps to secure their custody.