Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and conclusion:- Taken together, the relevance of multiple accused's disclosure statements hinges on whether they collectively establish conspiracy or merely individual knowledge. Courts demand corroborative evidence beyond mere disclosures, and reliance solely on such statements is often deemed insufficient for conviction ["Manoj Kumar Soni VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court"].- The legal trend favors a cautious approach: disclosure statements, whether of one or multiple accused, are admissible but not conclusive unless supported by other credible evidence. The court's evaluation involves assessing the circumstances, voluntariness, and corroboration of these statements ["Gurcharan Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Gurmit Singh @ Master VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].- Overall, the collective disclosure statements of two accused are relevant only if they are cogently established, supported by recoveries or independent evidence, and do not solely form the basis of conviction ["Gurcharan Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"].
In criminal trials, disclosure statements made by accused persons can be pivotal evidence, especially under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But what happens when two accused provide such statements together? Is a disclosure statement taken together of two accused whether relevant? This question often arises in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution hinges on recoveries based on these statements.
Courts scrutinize the manner, timing, and outcome of these disclosures closely. Generally, separate statements made in quick succession that lead to the discovery of facts may be admissible, while simultaneous or joint ones raise red flags. This post breaks down the legal nuances, drawing from key judgments and principles to help you understand when such statements hold weight.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The admissibility and relevance of a joint disclosure statement by two accused hinge on its recording circumstances, timing, and whether it results in the discovery of a fact. Under Section 27, statements are typically admissible if made separately, in quick succession, and lead to credible discoveries. However, joint disclosures made simultaneously or in chorus are often suspect and may lack probative value unless corroborated. KISHORE BHADKE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2017 1 Supreme 303Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453Abdul Kalam @ Gaonburah VS State of Assam - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 66VIKAS SHARMA @ MONI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 106Soneram VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 288
For instance, if disclosures do not lead to actual recovery or appear fabricated, they are generally inadmissible. Courts emphasize credibility, proper proof, and independent corroboration. KISHORE BHADKE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2017 1 Supreme 303Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453
When accused make disclosures separately but in quick succession, courts often uphold their admissibility. In Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra, the court ruled that such statements, leading to actual discovery, are credible because they are not joint but distinct. Soneram VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 288
Similarly, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu clarified that even if disclosures seem similar, the focus is on whether they genuinely led to facts' discovery, provided they are properly proved. Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453
This principle extends to cases where recoveries follow promptly. For example, in a theft case, gold ingots recovered based on individual accused's disclosures were scrutinized, but mere recovery without linkage to the crime was deemed insufficient—highlighting the need for more. KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 664
Joint statements, particularly simultaneous ones, are problematic. Courts note that accused unlikely to confess in chorus. If interrogated separately yet yielding identical content without details on timing or place, doubts arise about authenticity. KISHORE BHADKE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2017 1 Supreme 303Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453Abdul Kalam @ Gaonburah VS State of Assam - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 66
In one murder appeal, three identical disclosure statements lacked specifics on where, how and when they were made, casting strong doubts: It is also extremely noteworthy that the three disclosure statements are identical in their content with almost minor and insignificant variations. This led to acquittal due to broken circumstantial chains. SUNIL KUMAR VS STATE - 2017 Supreme(Del) 827
Another case echoed this: A disclosure leading to a revolver recovery was noted, but the overall conviction failed for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, underscoring that disclosures alone rarely suffice. Ajit alias Jeeta VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3276
Timing is critical—disclosures before discovery bolster relevance. Proper recording, including who spoke, when, and what, is mandatory. In Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P., the court stressed proving exact information; oral claims fall short. KISHORE BHADKE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2017 1 Supreme 303
Recoveries must be voluntary and linked. In a conspiracy-murder case, a pistol recovery post-disclosure was invalidated as non-voluntary after sustained interrogation. DINESH VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 242
Witness credibility matters too. In a Jammu & Kashmir case, a disclosure about concealed stones was witnessed, but the prosecution failed to prove the full chain, leading to acquittal: The prosecution must prove all circumstantial evidence conclusively to establish guilt; mere suspicion does not suffice. State of J and K v. Pawan Kumar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1385
Even in upheld cases, like weapon recoveries from accused point-outs, blood stains and memos were key—but only within complete evidence chains. Gambhir Singh VS State of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 96
Other precedents reinforce caution. In a Malaysian corruption context (analogous principles), pre-trial disclosure of favorable statements to accused ensures fairness, but prosecution must disclose relevant material. SIM CHOO THIAM vs PP
In murder appeals based on circumstantial evidence, reliance on disclosures failed without complete chains: The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish criminal conspiracy, murder, and possession of a firearm... emphasized the need for unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. Priyavart VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 191
Alcohol-related disclosures in a sudden fight case were noted but secondary to eyewitnesses. Harish Chandra @ Suraj VS State - 2017 Supreme(Del) 2269
In summary, a joint disclosure statement of two accused may be relevant if separate and leading to discovery, but simultaneous ones are typically doubtful without robust proof. Courts prioritize credibility over form, as seen across cases like Navjot SandhuSantosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453 and others. Prosecutions strengthen by focusing on solid chains; defenses exploit gaps in recording or linkage.
Understanding these nuances can influence trial strategies. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence under Section 27 for better outcomes in criminal matters.
#EvidenceAct #DisclosureStatements #CriminalLaw
Accused-appellant Gurcharan Singh was arrested and he suffered his disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of one ear-ring from him. ... Gurcharan Singh, appellant, suffered his disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same, he got recovered one ring to the Investigating Officer, which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo, Ex.PK/1. ... The prosecution examined PW-1 HC Ram Mehar, who deposed with regard to the disclosure of the co-#HL_....
of relevant material. ... When an application is made to a court, or to a police officer under this section, the court is bound to consider whether there is a prima facie case for supposing that the documents are relevant, ie whether books of a particular type are likely to ... • The time as to when a statement was taken from DSHZ would also be useful for him to demonstrate to the court that charges were preferred against him before the said statement was ....
The disclosure statement suffered by the accused himself was also relevant and admissible piece of evidence. ... He suffered disclosure statement and got recovered a 32 bore revolver and two cartridges in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Pardeep was also arrested subsequently. Challan/supplementary challan against these accused were persented in the Court at different points of time.....
He suffered disclosure statement and got recovered a revolver 32 bore and two live cartridges in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Amit Dahiya and Ajit could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders. ... in the crime and, disclosure statement of each accused implicating the co-accused. ... It is also well settled that the circumstances in a case when taken toge....
He suffered disclosure statement and got recovered a revolver 32 bore and two live cartridges in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Amit Dahiya and Ajit could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders. ... in the crime and, disclosure statement of each accused implicating the coaccused. ... It is also well settled that the circumstances in a case when taken together on the....
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 676 overturned the conviction under Section 411, declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and held : 24. …, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted ... King-Emperor, (1924-25) 29 CWN 260 : AIR 1925 Cal 501, the Calcutta High Court further clarified the law related to criminal conspiracy : The rule of English law that is now well settled is that where two persons are indicted for cons....
Hence disclosure statement of accused was taken and also get the signature’s of witnesses. Complete the disclosure memo. x x x x x” The disclosure statement (supra), carries thereons the signatures, of the accused concerned. ... Two pinnies of 100 gms, each were separated for sample. Two sample parcels containing two Pinnies were sealed with seal BS and were taken in police poss....
As per the disclosure statement EXPW - M / 1, the respondent is alleged to have disclosed that he had concealed two stones at Sadoon Nallah in between Nallah and the road underneath the bushes. ... So far as the circumstance relating to disclosure statement of the respondent / accused under S.27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of weapon of offence (stones) pursuant thereto is concerned, PWs Maqdoom Shah and Mohd Maqbool Head Constables happen to be the witnesses to the d....
Immediately PW13, based on Ext.P17(a) disclosure statement given by the 5th accused, recovered 172 ½ grams of gold ingots from PW2, who was conducting a jewellery shop. ... Based on Exhibit P2(a) disclosure statement made by the 3rd accused, who is the 1st appellant herein, 28 grams of gold ingots were recovered from the possession of PW4. ... Exhibit P7 is the mahazar evidencing recovery of gold ingots weighing 40gms recovered by PW10 on the basis of Ext.P7(a) disclosure#HL_....
The accused were arrested, and, got recorded their disclosure statements. Accused Raj Kumar made a disclosure statement on 12.11.1998 and pursuant to the said statement he got recovered .38 bore country made pistol and four empty cases of cartridge. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. ... Contrarily, in case the disclosure statement and the consequent thereto recovery enclosed in the respective memos, do not fall foul ....
Pistol was recovered on the basis of statement made by accused Govind. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ombir was arrested at about 1.00 P.M. Accused also suffered another disclosure statement Ex.PN/4.
Weapons kulhari and katari said to have been used in commission of crime were also recovered on pointing out of accused-appellant Gambhir Singh (kulhari) and co-accused Abhishek (katari) in presence of witnesses from the house of deceased persons in a room where chaff was kept. Both weapons were found blood stained and were taken into custody and keeping them in sealed cloths and preparing sample seal, recovery memo Ex.Ka.-2 was prepared. It appears that on disclosure statement of accused, they were taken to the place of occurrence.
Both are vagabond in Delhi and used to work as rag-picker. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. It was disclosed by the accused, in his disclosure statement that he is an addict of alcohol and smack and deceased also used to take alcohol and smack with him.
It is also extremely noteworthy that the three disclosure statements are identical in their content with almost minor and insignificant variations. It is not the prosecution case that the two accused persons gave a common disclosure statement. There is no evidence as to where, how and when these disclosures were made. Given the similarity of the content of the statements, we have strong doubts as to whether these statements were actually made by the appellants.
Had the said statements not been voluntary, these statements would not have been made, as the prosecution witnesses/officers of the NCB were not aware of the same. Moreover, the statement of the two accused recorded under Section 67 show that they made disclosure of information to which only they were privy. For instance appellant Ashok Kumar disclosed: “I was born in the year 1976 in Chanpatia in Bihar. This is an order of reference of the legal issue to a larger bench and, therefore, no ratio is discernible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
