Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because Names Are Missing from Inquest Report, Rules Supreme Court in Shekappa v. State of Karnataka

Case: Shekappa and Others v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2026 INSC 1189
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
Proceedings: Criminal Appeal No. 2102 of 2011

Court Observation

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

Summary

The Supreme Court has upheld the life sentences of seven men convicted of murdering two brothers in Karnataka in 2001, holding that an eyewitness’s testimony cannot be discarded merely because the witness’s name does not appear in the inquest report. Mallappa and Gulappa were killed in the night of 8–9 September 2001 in Belavatgi village, Dharwad district, in an attack witnessed by their wives. The trial court disbelieved the widows and acquitted all the accused, but the Karnataka High Court, hearing the State’s appeal against acquittal, found their version credible and corroborated by medical evidence, and convicted the appellants under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder.

Dismissing the convicts’ appeal, the Court held that an inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and whether it was accidental, suicidal or homicidal, and that details of the assault, the identity of the assailants and the names of eyewitnesses fall outside its scope. The Court also held that a medical inference about the time of death drawn from the state of digestive contents is inherently uncertain and cannot override credible eyewitness testimony, that relatives of the deceased are not automatically “interested” witnesses, and that motive pales into insignificance where direct evidence is trustworthy.

Key Holdings

• An inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC (now Section 194 of the BNSS) is confined to the apparent cause of death; the names of eyewitnesses and the details of the assault need not be recorded, and their omission does not weaken the prosecution case.
• An eyewitness’s testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that their name did not appear in the inquest report.
• 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.
• Relatives of the deceased are not automatically “interested” witnesses; the widows were natural and trustworthy witnesses.
• Motive pales into insignificance where direct evidence is trustworthy.
• An appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence and reverse an acquittal where the trial court’s findings are perverse, based on a misreading of evidence or wholly unsustainable in law.

Directions Issued

• Finding no ground to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to surrender forthwith to undergo the sentence.

Background

The attack allegedly followed a dispute that began when a bull belonging to one of the accused injured a goat. The trial court acquitted all the accused in 2003, after which the State appealed and the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittals and convicted them.

Related Articles

• The Supreme Court underscores the need for careful scrutiny when examining the testimony of the sole eyewitness who also happens to be the complainant
• Eyewitness Account Can’t Be Discarded Merely Because Of Inconsistencies With Medical Evidence: Supreme Court

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.