Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two accused in a murder case, holding that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, once a location or object has been discovered at the instance of one accused, the same fact cannot be "re-discovered" through subsequent or identical statements made by co-accused. The Bench noted that the journey from "may be true" to "must be true" requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was absent in this case.

The Bench observed that while the last seen together theory is a relevant circumstance, it cannot form the sole basis for conviction when the secondary corroborative evidence, specifically the recovery of incriminating facts, is legally unsustainable.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “…There is nothing to even remotely indicate that there was discovery of any fact at the instance of the appellants admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The information should directly and distinctly relate to the facts discovered. Where, therefore, a fact has already been discovered any information given in that behalf afterwards cannot be said to lead to the discovery of the fact. There cannot be a rediscovery. Where the information as to the fact said to have been discovered is already in the possession of the police, the information given over again does not actually lead to any discovery so that its discovery over again in consequence of the information given by the accused is rightly inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act”.

Advocate Gurudatta Ankolekar appeared for the appellant and Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with the prime accused Kalappa, abducted and murdered Kalappa’s sister, on March 23, 2013, due to a financial dispute involving a debt of ₹20 lakhs.

It was alleged that the body was burnt in a reserve forest to destroy evidence, however, the case against the appellants primarily rested on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have seen the deceased in a car with the three accused and the subsequent recovery of skeletal remains and ornaments based on joint disclosures.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 364, 404, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The Karnataka High Court subsequently affirmed this conviction in December 2021, therefore, challenging the concurrent findings, the appellants moved the Supreme Court, contending that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to sustain a life sentence.

The Supreme Court scrutinised the "joint discovery" of the crime scene and the place where the body was burnt. It found that the prime accused, Kalappa, had already disclosed these locations and pointed them out to the police first. Therefore, the subsequent identical statements by the appellants did not lead to the discovery of any "new" fact.

The Court held that Section 27 cannot be used to repeatedly discover the same fact through multiple accused to create a false sense of corroboration. With the recovery evidence discarded, the Court found that the "last seen" circumstance alone was too weak to prove the case.

“In the case before us, the evidence is purely of a joint discovery of the same mental fact said to have been made by all the four accused simultaneously with the result that it is not possible to say which statement of a particular accused relates distinctly to the discovery of a particular mental fact. Thus, in the present case, the safeguards contemplated by Section 27 are not evident, and in the absence of these safeguards, the discovery evidence of two particular places i.e., the place where the deceased was killed and the place where her dead body was burnt cannot be utilized against the appellants”, the Bench noted.

“…We are of the view that it will be too much for us to affirm the conviction of the appellants for a serious offence like murder solely relying on the circumstance of last seen together. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution case ‘may be true’ but it is not that of ‘must be true’, and there is a long distance to travel between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’”, the Bench, thus, noted.

The Court, accordingly, allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and the Court ordered their immediate release from custody, provided they are not required in any other case.

Cause Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 417)

Appearances:

Appellant: Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocate.

Respondent: Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General, Himanshu Mishra, AOR.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: