Supreme Court upholds High Court convictions after finding trial court's acquittal perverse and ocular evidence credible

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals arising from communal violence and a homicide in Hassan district, in which sixteen accused were tried for offences including unlawful assembly, culpable homicide and related charges. The appeals challenged a Karnataka High Court judgment that had partly reversed a trial-court acquittal and convicted seven accused (appeal nos. 541–543 and 1509–1510 of 2015), while confirming acquittal of the remaining persons; the appellants before this Court sought to impugn those convictions.

The Court summarized that the High Court had correctly interfered with the trial court’s blanket acquittal where that view was found to be legally untenable and perverse. It held that the injured eyewitness’s testimony (PW‑1) was reliable, her account remained consistent with the FIR and medical records, and the medical opinion did not displace lucid ocular testimony unless totally irreconcilable. The Court reiterated settled law that ocular evidence generally had primacy over medical opinion where they were not irreconcilable, and that estimates of time of death were probabilistic. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence…” The bench noted that “the time of death can never be defined with accuracy; it can only be given as a probable estimate during autopsy, with a margin of a couple of hours (plus/minus) always being assumed.”

Background The dispute arose on 16 March 2003 when the deceased, Mohan Kumar, left his house to carry milk and, according to prosecution witnesses including his wife (PW‑1), was waylaid by a group of persons bearing prior enmity and assaulted with deadly weapons. The deceased suffered multiple injuries and died; his wife sustained grievous injuries and narrated the incident to police at the Primary Health Centre, producing the FIR. The investigating officers recorded recoveries at the scene and at the instance of accused, produced forensic and serology reports, and filed charges. The trial court examined 23 prosecution witnesses, produced numerous documents and material objects, and nonetheless acquitted all accused on 13 September 2010—finding, inter alia, that the injured witness’s timing conflicted with a medical opinion and adopting a defence theory of a conspiracy involving PW‑1 and another witness.

The State and the informant appealed. The Karnataka High Court, after detailed scrutiny, found the trial court’s reasons to disbelieve PW‑1 to be unsustainable: the post‑mortem’s broad estimate (10–12 hours before an examination at 3–4 pm) could accommodate a 6:00 am incident; the defence story of an illicit relationship and a fabricated conspiracy was unsupported and contradicted by dates and lack of cross‑examination on that point. The High Court accordingly convicted accused nos. 1–6 and 11 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with 149 IPC and imposed life sentences under Section 302 read with 149, while acquitting others and moderating certain charges to grievous hurt rather than attempt to murder. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s approach, rejected the appellants’ challenge that the High Court failed to expressly conclude the trial court’s view was not a “probable view,” and held that the High Court had properly evaluated ocular and medical evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The appeals were dismissed and the convicted persons were ordered to continue to serve their sentences. No interim directions or liberties were granted; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1213 Case Title: Sri Chikkegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in judgment