2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1675

J.B. Pardiwala, J
Anand Jakkappa Pujari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2024|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2180 OF 2026

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of events excluding all hypotheses except guilt. Joint disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, without evidence of specific authorship of concealment or distinct information, are unreliable and cannot solely support a conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Scope and admissibility of disclosure statements of multiple accused - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt - Chain of evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis - Disclosure statement made while in police custody is an exception to the general rule and must be strictly construed - Joint or simultaneous disclosure statements, while not per se inadmissible, present inherent difficulties in establishing distinct authorship of concealment and nexus with discovery of fact. (Paras 27, 30, 31, 58, 62, 68)

(B) Evidence - Circumstantial - Last seen theory - Mere last seen proximity without corroboration or additional incriminating evidence is insufficient to lead to an irrefutable conclusion of guilt, especially when the time gap exists. (Paras 41, 43, 44)

(C) Evidence - Discovery under Section 27 - The fact discovered must relate distinctly to the information received - Where simultaneous statements are made and the recovery is common, the absence of specific evidence as to whose information led to the discovery makes it hazardous to attribute such recovery to specific individuals for proving guilt. (Paras 61, 68)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased was abducted and murdered by the accused persons over a financial dispute regarding a loan and family property. The prosecution relied on the 'last seen' theory, evidence of motive, and recovery of incriminating articles (weapon, vehicle, ornaments) through disclosure statements made by the accused while in police custody.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of events. The court held that the disclosure statements were recorded in a manner that failed to demonstrate distinct authorship of concealment, rendering the discovery evidence unreliable against the appellants.

Issues: Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' theory and joint disclosure statements, met the legal threshold for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt. The court ruled that joint disclosure statements without evidence identifying which accused provided information leading to specific discoveries cannot be relied upon to prove guilt. Furthermore, the ‘last seen’ theory requires corroboration, and absent sufficient evidence, it cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted.