SHEKAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation: 2026 INSC 1189
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 3 November 2026
Bench: K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli, JJ.
1. Facts of the Case
- A dispute arose between the accused and Nagappa (PW-25) concerning a goat injured by a bull belonging to accused No. 2.
- The deceased Mallappa and Gulappa supported Nagappa in the dispute.
- Due to the resulting hostility, the prosecution alleged that seven accused attacked and murdered the two brothers using axes during the night of 8–9 September 2001.
- The wives of the deceased, PW-17 and PW-18, claimed to have witnessed the incident.
- The Trial Court acquitted the accused.
- The Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them.
- The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
2. Legal Provisions Involved
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 143 IPC | Punishment for unlawful assembly |
| Section 148 IPC | Rioting, armed with deadly weapon |
| Section 302 IPC | Punishment for murder |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt |
| Section 341 IPC | Punishment for wrongful restraint |
| Section 149 IPC | Offence committed by member of unlawful assembly |
| Section 174 CrPC | Police inquiry and report on suicide, etc. |
Note: Section 174 CrPC is now corresponding to Section 194 BNSS.
3. Important Legal Issues and Principles
Issue 1: Whether the testimony of a related witness can be rejected?
Held: No. A witness cannot be disbelieved merely because they are related to the deceased.
Principle: A related witness is not necessarily an interested or partisan witness. Their testimony must be carefully scrutinised.
Issue 2: Whether non-mention of eyewitness names in an inquest report makes their testimony unreliable?
Held: No.
Principle: The purpose of an inquest is to ascertain the apparent cause of death and the nature of injuries. Recording the names of eyewitnesses is not mandatory.
Case law: Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450.
Issue 3: Whether stomach contents can conclusively determine the time of death?
Held: No.
Principle: The digestive process varies from person to person depending on food, health and digestive capacity. Digestive evidence cannot conclusively determine the time of death.
Case laws:
- Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 5.
- Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
Issue 4: Whether delay in lodging an FIR automatically makes the prosecution case doubtful?
Held: No.
Principle: Delay must be examined in the light of surrounding circumstances and the explanation offered.
Issue 5: Whether a High Court can reverse an acquittal?
Held: Yes, where the acquittal is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
Principle: An appellate court has the power to reappreciate evidence. However, where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should ordinarily not be disturbed.
Case law: Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206.
4. Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions imposed by the Karnataka High Court.
5. Five Principles to Remember
- Relationship does not automatically disqualify a witness.
- An inquest report is not intended to contain the entire prosecution story.
- Digestive processes cannot precisely determine the time of death.
- Delay in FIR registration is not automatically fatal.
- An appellate court can interfere with a perverse acquittal.
6. Important Paragraphs
- Paragraphs 19–21: Appeal against acquittal.
- Paragraphs 22–23: Motive.
- Paragraphs 24–33: Eyewitness testimony.
- Paragraphs 34–36: Inquest proceedings.
- Paragraphs 38–44: Medical evidence and digestive process.
- Paragraphs 45–47: FIR delay and contradictions.
- Paragraph 48: Final decision.
