The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by seven men convicted of killing two brothers in Karnataka, holding that the consistent eyewitness accounts of the victims' wives, supported by medical evidence, were sufficient to sustain their conviction.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli ruled that the Karnataka High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal after finding that its reasoning suffered from serious errors and ignored crucial evidence. The Court directed the appellants to surrender forthwith.
Background
The case arose from an incident during the intervening night of September 8 and 9, 2001, when Mallappa and Gulappa were killed in Belavatgi village, Karnataka.
The prosecution traced the dispute to an earlier disagreement involving a bull belonging to appellant Rudrappa and a goat owned by Nagappa. After the bull injured the goat, Nagappa demanded ₹600 towards treatment expenses. The disagreement escalated when Rudrappa allegedly took back a goat that had been given as a temporary arrangement.
The deceased brothers had supported Nagappa during the dispute. The prosecution alleged that this led to hostility between the accused and the deceased.
According to the prosecution, the seven accused arrived at the family's residence during the night, armed with axes. Mallappa was attacked while sleeping outside his house, and the accused subsequently moved towards the cattle shed, where Gulappa was sleeping with his wife.
The wives of the deceased, Doddasiddavva (PW-17) and Siddavva (PW-18), identified the accused and described the individual roles played during the attacks.
The Supreme Court found their testimonies consistent on the material aspects. It also noted that PW-18 had sustained an injury during the incident, which was medically examined and found consistent with an assault using the blunt handle of an axe.
Rejecting the argument that the women should be treated as interested witnesses because they were related to the deceased, the Bench observed:
"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."
The Court also rejected the argument that the women's testimonies were unreliable because their names were not mentioned in the inquest report.
Explaining the limited purpose of an inquest, the Bench held that such proceedings primarily establish the apparent cause and circumstances of death. They are not intended to record every detail of the incident or identify all eyewitnesses.
The Court clarified:
"A testimony of an eyewitness cannot be discarded on the ground that their names did not appear in the inquest report."
The appellants also questioned the prosecution's version by relying on the doctor's opinion suggesting a possible four-hour gap between the deaths of Mallappa and Gulappa.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning unreliable, explaining that the digestive process cannot establish the precise time of death. Such medical estimates cannot outweigh credible eyewitness testimony.
It also rejected the argument regarding delay in lodging the FIR. The Court accepted that the family was grieving, villagers had gathered after the incident, and the complainant had to wait for assistance in preparing a written complaint.
The Bench found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's judgment reversing the acquittal. It concluded that the eyewitness accounts were trustworthy and were supported by medical evidence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed all seven appellants to surrender forthwith. It further ordered the Trial Court to take steps to secure their custody if they failed to surrender.
