Table of Contents
Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka (with connected case)
Citation: 2026 INSC 417
Introduction
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in cases involving disclosure statements made by multiple accused persons. It clarified that when more than one accused provides information, admissibility depends on whether such information leads to a fresh and distinct discovery attributable to each accused. In this context, the concept of joint disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act becomes crucial in assessing evidentiary value. Further, since Section 27 is an exception to the rule excluding confessions made in police custody, it must be applied cautiously and interpreted within strict limits
Factual Background
The case arose from the disappearance of a woman in March 2013. Subsequently, authorities discovered her burnt skeletal remains in a forest area. During the investigation, suspicion arose against several accused persons who were allegedly last seen with the deceased.
Thereafter, the police took the accused into custody and interrogated them. During questioning, they allegedly disclosed certain facts relating to the crime. Acting on this information, the police identified locations said to be connected with the offence.
Relying on these disclosures along with circumstantial evidence, the prosecution built its case. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. However, two accused persons challenged the findings before the Supreme Court.
Also Read:
Amendment of Suit by Landlord’s Legal Heirs Allowed – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/amendment-of-suit-by-landlords-legal-heirs-supreme-court/
Supreme Court Held
- Section 27 permits admission of only that portion of a statement which directly relates to the fact discovered. Therefore, the remaining part of the statement remains inadmissible.
- Importantly, the expression “fact discovered” includes not just a physical object but also the knowledge of the accused regarding its existence and location, as clarified in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor.
- For this provision to apply, the prosecution must establish a clear and direct link between the information given and the discovery made. Without such a connection, Section 27 cannot be invoked.
- Additionally, investigators must clearly identify who gave the information, what exact words were used, and how those words led to the discovery. In the absence of such clarity, the evidentiary value becomes doubtful.
- When several accused are involved, individual attribution becomes essential. Consequently, failure to distinguish the role of each accused weakens the reliability of the evidence.
- Although joint or simultaneous disclosures are not automatically inadmissible, courts must evaluate them cautiously. This is because practical difficulties often arise in determining who said what.
- Moreover, where multiple accused provide similar information relating to a fact already known to the police, such statements do not lead to any new discovery. As a result, they fall outside the scope of Section 27.
- Once a fact has already been discovered, it cannot be rediscovered. Accordingly, repetition of the same information does not satisfy the legal requirement.
- At the same time, discovery evidence must demonstrate a clear nexus between the information supplied and the fact discovered. Without this linkage, reliance on such evidence becomes unsafe.
- Since Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, courts must interpret it strictly and avoid expanding its scope beyond the statutory language.
- Applying these principles, the Court observed that all accused pointed to the same locations. Therefore, no distinct discovery could be attributed to any individual accused.
- Consequently, once the discovery evidence lost its admissibility, the remaining circumstance of “last seen together” alone proved insufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Laws
State Govt. v. Chhotelal Mohanlal – Accepted joint disclosures only when distinct discoveries occurred.
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Explained proper procedure for recording disclosure statements and preparing panchnama.
Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. – Emphasized the need to identify exact words used by each accused.
Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra – Laid down essential conditions for applicability of Section 27.
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya – Clarified admissibility limited to discovery-related portion.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu – Recognized that joint disclosures are not per se inadmissible.
Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka – Reaffirmed cautious evaluation of joint disclosures.
Lachhman Singh v. State – Highlighted importance of linking discovery to specific accused.
Also Read:
Article 227: High Court Cannot Reassess Evidence – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/article-227-high-court-cannot-reassess-evidence-supreme-court/
[…] Also Read:Section 27 Evidence Act: Discovery Statement & Admissibility Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-27-evidence-act/ […]