Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 453
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3788 of 2022]
With
Mahadev Sidram Hullolli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15426 of 2025]
Decided On : 27-04-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Charudatta Vijayrao Mahindrakar, AOR Mrs. Darshana Mahindrakar, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Raut, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Vats, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Amith J, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Kavya Eligeti, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Rajivkumar, AOR Mr. Aviskar Singhvi, AAG Ms. Rekha C. Patil, AOR Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Vishal M.V., Dv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Circumstance of “last seen together” does not by itself and necessarily lead to inference that it was accused who committed crime.
(2) Disclosure Statement – Information should directly and distinctly relate to facts discovered.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 – Kidnapping, murder, robbery of valuables and disappearance of evidence – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstantial evidence to justify conviction must be consistent with any reasonable or rational hypothesis of guilt of accused – Last seen theory comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of crime becomes impossible – Even in such a case, courts should look for some corroboration – In each of confessional statements, accused persons made clean breast of their crime – These confessional statements, as such could be said to be hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act and could not have been exhibited – Courts below committed error in placing implicit reliance on discovery part – Prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted of all charges. (Paras 30, 41, 43, 45, 63, 69, 70 and 71)
(B) Criminal Law – Accomplice – An accomplice is a person who voluntarily and knowingly participates in commission of a crime with principal offender – He is an associate in crime committed whether as a principal or accessory – By a ‘principal in first degree’ means actual offender, man in whose guilty mind lay latest blamable mental cause of criminal act – Almost always, he will be the man by whom this act itself was done – A ‘principal in second degree’ is a person who aids and abets another in perpetration of a crime and common law has always been equally punishable with actual door of deed – Principal in second degree is one by whom actual perpetrator of felony is aided and abetted at the very time when it is committed. (Paras 33, 34 and 36)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure Statement – Section 27 of Evidence Act is in nature of an exception to general rules contained in Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act – Section 27 says that such part of information given by accused person while in custody of a police officer may be proved against him as distinctly relates to the fact which is thereby discovered – It makes admissible a confession made while in police custody if other conditions laid in it are fulfilled – Being an exception to general rule it has to be strictly construed – Section 27 of Evidence Act does not permit admission in evidence of whole of confession, but of such portion only of it as can be said to relate distinctly to fact discovered – Information should directly and distinctly relate to facts discovered. (Paras 62 and 64)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad dated 22.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100096 and 100109 of 2018, respectively, by which High Court dismissed appeals preferred by appellants herein and thereby affirmed judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2013 holding appellants herein guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that last seen together alone is not sufficient for conviction and requires corroboration. (!) (!) - It discusses the proper scope and strict construction of Section 27 Evidence Act, including issues with discovery statements and joint disclosures, and the need for facts discovered to relate distinctly to the discovered fact. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s findings included reliance on DNA for identity, cause of death uncertainties, and recoveries from the accused, but the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
What is the test and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence required to convict on last-seen-with-the-deceased in a murder case?
What is the admissibility and limits of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act discovery statements (including joint disclosures) in establishing linked facts?
What are the appellate court’s findings on whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the last-seen and discovery evidence?
JUDGMENT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
| INDEX | |
| I. | CASE OF THE PROSECUTION |
| II. | IMPUGNED JUDGMENT |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS |
| IV. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
| V. | ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION |
| VI. | ANALYSIS |
| A. Last seen together with the deceased | |
| B.Discovery at the instance of the accused-appellants | |
| VII. | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 15426 of 2025.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the appellants are co-convicts and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad dated 22.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100096 and 100109 of 2018, respectively (hereinafter, “the impugned judgment”), by which the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2013 holding the appellants herein guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively (for short, “the IPC”).
I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant, PW-1, Basanagowda @Milan, son of the deceased, filed a complaint, Ex.P.1, on 25.03.2013 with the Mudhol Police Station. In the complaint, Ex.P.1, he stated that on 23.03.2013, at about 12 noon, the deceased left for the house of her daughter viz. Shailashri Lendi, where she stayed till about 1:15 PM. Thereafter, at about 1:25 PM, she left for the house of her younger brother viz. Suresh Kamakeri. He further stated that from the younger brother’s house, the deceased’s elder brother viz. Kalappa Hanamanth Kamakeri (Accused No.1) took her to Arihant Gold Shop. From the gold shop, the deceased was dropped at the Bhavani Steel Centre as she wanted to purchase some utensils. At around 5 PM, the deceased left the utensil shop informing the shopkeeper that she would collect the utensils later. It has been further stated that when Suresh called the deceased to take her home from the market, her phone was found switched off. He informed Shailashri, and she in turn informed the complainant. The complainant alongwith his siblings, his brother-in-law, and brothers of the deceased started searching for her. The complainant stated that he got to know the whereabouts of the deceased from the owners of the gold shop and the utensil shop respectively. It has been further stated that the complainant came to know that the deceased’s phone was switched off after 5:30 PM. The complainant disclosed the list of items, including jewellery that the deceased had in her possession when she left her home in the morning. Thus, it was stated that the deceased went missing on 23.03.2013 between 5 and 5:30 PM.
5. In such circumstances, the complainant thought fit to lodge the complaint referred to above at the police station. The said complaint was reduced in the form of a First Information Report and was numbered as Cr. No. 59/13 with the Mudhol Police Station.
6. The record reveals that in the evening of 27.03.2013, the Forest Guard working at the Ramadurga Branch viz. Dayananda Rudrappa Dyamanni, PW-2, filed a report, Ex.P.35, with the Ramadurga Police Station. The report stated that while he alongwith Forest Ranger viz. M.G. Mohammad Ali, were on duty and patrolling on the road to Mulluru village of Doddamagadi Village in the reserve forest, they noticed a spot where they found burnt pieces of bones, a piece of burnt light green saree about 4 finger width, small half burnt bone, red coloured broken bangles etc. A burnt skull and two broken jaws were also found about 2-3 ft. far f
