Widows Are Natural Witnesses: SC Upholds Murder Convictions

Widows Who Saw Husbands Killed Are Natural, Not Interested, Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds Double-Murder Convictions

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Shekappa and others against the High Court's reversal of their acquittal for a 2001 double murder, leaving their life sentences in place. The two victims' widows, who saw the night attack and knew the accused, were natural and trustworthy witnesses, and the post-mortem injuries corroborated them. Missing names in the inquest report, a doctor's digestion-based time gap and the timing of the complaint raised no real doubt (paras 21, 31-37, 41-47).

Key holdings

The High Court rightly found the acquittal unsustainable; only the appellants' guilt was a possible view (paras 19-21).

Widows who saw their husbands killed at night were natural witnesses, not interested ones (paras 31, 33).

An inquest report need not name eyewitnesses or describe who assaulted the deceased (paras 35-36).

Digestion-based time-of-death estimates cannot alone displace clear ocular evidence (paras 41-43).

Minor variations and the complaint's timing did not shake the core prosecution case (paras 45-47).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

An earlier dispute over a goat gored by one accused's bull had set the accused against a villager whose side the deceased took (paras 2-4, 22). The prosecution case was that around 1:00 AM on the night of 8-9 September 2001 the accused, armed with axes, killed two brothers sleeping outside their home, one on a raised platform and the other in the cattle shed, while some of them held the wives (paras 6-9). One widow lodged a written complaint the next morning (para 10). The trial court acquitted the accused; the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under Sections 143, 148, 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC, with life imprisonment for murder (paras 1, 16).

Court's Findings

Citing Arulvelu, the Court held that an appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence against an acquittal but must find it perverse or wholly unsustainable, and should not interfere where two reasonable views exist (para 20). The trial court had discarded crucial evidence and glorified non-essential aspects; no two views were possible (para 21). Motive was also established, though it matters little given trustworthy direct evidence (paras 22-23). The widows were natural witnesses who knew the accused, described each one's overt acts and were not shaken in cross-examination; the trial court over-emphasised minor contradictions (para 31). There was evidence of electric light, and acquaintances could identify the accused by voice and appearance anyway (paras 31-32). A related witness is not necessarily interested or partisan (para 33). Relying on Radha Mohan Singh, it held that who witnessed an assault is foreign to an inquest under Section 174 CrPC (paras 35-36). One widow was injured, and the doctor's evidence amply corroborated both (para 37). Relying on Nihal Singh and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, a digestion-based four-hour gap could not displace clear eyewitness evidence of the time (paras 41-43). The complaint's timing was explained (para 46).

Legal Principle

An appellate court reversing an acquittal must find it perverse or wholly unsustainable, with no second reasonable view. Close relatives who naturally witnessed a night attack are not interested witnesses merely by relationship. Omissions in an inquest report, or inconclusive inferences from stomach contents, cannot outweigh trustworthy eyewitness evidence (paras 20-21, 33, 35, 42).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For the defence, the ruling narrows familiar lines of attack on family eyewitnesses. Relationship alone will not make a widow an interested witness, an inquest report's silence on eyewitnesses proves nothing, and a doctor's estimate from stomach contents will not override consistent eyewitness timing (paras 33, 35, 42-43). Appeals against High Court reversals of acquittals should instead show a second reasonable view on the evidence, which the Court did not find here (paras 20-21). For an acquittal left undisturbed, compare Tinkari Ghosh.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Arulvelu and Another vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another (2009) 10 SCC 206
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20
In an appeal against acquittal the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence, but should not disturb the acquittal where two reasonable conclusions are possible, and must find it clearly perverse or wholly unsustainable before setting it aside; applied to hold that no two views were possible and the High Court rightly reversed the acquittal.
Radha Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb and Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 35, 36
An inquest under Section 174 CrPC is limited to the apparent cause of death; who assaulted the deceased, how, and who witnessed it are foreign to it; applied to hold that the eyewitnesses could not be disbelieved because their names were not in the inquest report.
Nihal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab [1964] 4 SCR 5
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 42
The time needed to digest food varies with the food, the person’s digestive capacity and health; such evidence cannot be the sole basis for rejecting acceptable eyewitness evidence of the time of the incident; applied to reject the trial court’s reliance on the doctor’s four-hour-gap answer.

View all precedents (4)

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 43
Stomach contents cannot fix the time of death with precision, and such “digestive” testimony is inconclusive and insufficient to contradict positive evidence of the time of death; relied on with Nihal Singh on the same point.