The Supreme Court has upheld the Karnataka High Court’s reversal of a 2003 acquittal and the life sentences of seven men for the axe killing of two men in Belavatgi village, Dharwad district, in the early hours of 9 September 2001.
In an appeal against acquittal, an appellate court can reappreciate the evidence and reverse the acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is perverse or unsustainable and no other view is possible. An inquest report under Section 174 CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS) is limited to the apparent cause of death, and the omission of eyewitnesses’ names or the details of the assault there is not a reason to reject their evidence. A doctor’s inference about the time of death from digestive contents is not conclusive and cannot override credible eyewitness testimony. Relatives of the deceased are not automatically “interested” witnesses, and motive pales into insignificance where there is trustworthy direct evidence.
The attack was allegedly over a dispute that began when a bull belonging to Rudrappa (A-2) injured a goat of Nagappa (PW-25). The two deceased, Mallappa and Gulappa, had taken Nagappa’s side. According to the widows (PW-17 and PW-18), who were sleeping nearby, seven men came at about 1 am armed with axes, held them down and chopped the two men to death, and one widow was struck on the forehead with the blunt handle of an axe. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted them under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC. Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli dismissed the appeal. They held that, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can reappreciate the evidence and reverse an acquittal that is perverse or unsustainable, and here “no two views are possible”. They found the widows natural and trustworthy eyewitnesses. They were relatives but not “interested” witnesses, the accused were known to them, an electricity certificate showed there was light, and motive was established though not essential where there is trustworthy direct evidence. On the Trial Court’s other doubts, the court held that the inquest report need not mention the names of eyewitnesses or details of the assault (Radha Mohan Singh, which overruled the contrary view in Meharaj Singh). It also said that the doctor’s opinion of a four-hour gap in the deaths, based on stomach contents, cannot override credible eyewitness evidence (Nihal Singh, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade), that the delay in the FIR was explained by the village and the grief, and that variations in the testimony were minor. The seven appellants have been directed to surrender immediately, failing which the Trial Court must take them into custody.
Citation: Shekappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 2102 of 2011, Supreme Court (Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli), decided on 03.11.2026 | 2026 INSC 1189
Leave a Reply