The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of seven men for murdering two brothers in Karnataka in 2001, holding that the trustworthy eyewitness testimony of the deceased's wives could not be discarded merely because they were related to the victims.

The Court reiterated that the credibility of a direct ocular piece of evidence overrides a medical inference.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli dismissed the appeal filed by the convicts, upholding the Karnataka High Court's judgment reversing their acquittal ordered by the Sessions Court.

The case relates to the year 2001, when the Appellants, in the intervening night have committed an assault on the deceased persons with an axe leading to their death. The whole incident was witnessed by the deceased's wives, and the autopsy report established the death to be homicidal in nature. Moreover, the disclosure statements also led to the recovery of the axe used in the commission of the crime.

The Sessions Court, however, in ignorance of the direct ocular evidence, has relied on insignificant materials, which do not have bearing on the outcome of the case in order to dilute the credibility of the direct evidence. One of the aspects taken into consideration by the Sessions Court was the discrepancy in the medical evidence and the witness's statement about the inference on the digestive process of the deceased persons to infer the time difference between their last meal and time of death.

While the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, said there was about a four-hour time gap between the deaths of the deceased persons, the witnesses stated that the deaths had occurred nearly four hours after their last meals.

The High Court, while overturning the decision of acquittal, found the Sessions Court's reasoning to be bad for failing to appreciate the evidence properly.

“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.”, the High Court said.

Endorsing the High Court's findings, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan said that the Appellants have attempted to create doubt of the prosecution's case based on the inconclusive digestive process, which pales into insignificance when there exists a direct ocular piece of evidence.

“The attempt made by the 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.”, the Court said, emphasising that “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.”

“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.”, the Court added.

"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."

Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Rejected Due To Absence Of Names In Inquest Report

The Supreme Court also rejected the trial court's reasoning that the names of the eyewitnesses were not mentioned in the inquest panchnama.

Referring to Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court reiterated that the purpose of an inquest is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and whether it was unnatural or suspicious.

The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Radha Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb v. State of U.P., which explained that details regarding the actual assault, the identity of the assailants and the names of eyewitnesses are not required to be recorded in an inquest report.

The bench held:

"A testimony of an eyewitness cannot be discarded on the ground that their names did not appear in the inquest report."

The Court added that the absence of the names of eyewitnesses in the inquest report was not sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case.

As a result, the appeal failed and was dismissed. The Appellants were directed to surrender forthwith.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Basavaprabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shivanand Lahri, Adv. Ms. Kavya Eligeti, Adv. Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv.