S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 16) set aside the conviction in a murder case, noting that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of “so-called confessional statements” made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the police and an alleged discovery arising from such confessional statements, especially when the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi overturned the Karnataka High Court's judgment, holding that it erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal solely on the basis of disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 to connect the accused with the offence, without doing an exercise to find out whether the prosecution was successful in completing the entire chain of circumstances to establish the Appellants connection with the crime.

“We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the accused had committed the alleged offences.”, the court observed.

The case concerned an alleged murder where the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, mainly the disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of the body based on those statements, and surrounding factors like motive, last seen evidence, and conspiracy.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the recovery and disclosure statements were insufficient for conviction, and key witnesses, especially the sole “last seen” witness (PW-5), were unreliable. It also noted inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's timeline.

However, the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, treating the Section 27 disclosures and the recovery of the body as decisive links connecting the accused to the crime, even in the absence of a fully established chain of circumstances.

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the accused persons appealed to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the issue arose whether, in the absence of a complete chain of circumstances linking the Appellants with the crime, the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal, and whether reliance on the disclosure statements and alleged recovery was legally sustainable.

Answering in the negative, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi restored the Trial Court's decision to acquit the Appellants, holding that the conviction had been founded primarily on “so-called confessional statements” and a doubtful discovery, without satisfying the settled principles governing circumstantial evidence.

“…it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference by Appellate Court – The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court must exercise caution before reversing an order of acquittal - While the appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence, it should not disturb the findings of the Trial Court if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record - Interference is only justified if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is based on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or if the Trial Court's view is "clearly unreasonable" - The acquittal further strengthens the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. [Paras 27 - 31]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 r/w 34 – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – In a case primarily resting on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a purported eye-witness, Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain conviction - Noted significant discrepancies: the eye-witness failed to report the incident for 21 days, alleged threats were not substantiated, and the witness was treated as partially hostile - medical evidence regarding the time of death (10 days prior to post-mortem) conflicted with the prosecution's timeline (21 days prior) - held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances - Required – Conspiracy cannot be presumed and requires proof of a meeting of minds, prior agreement, and concerted action - Mere suspicion, association, or the existence of civil disputes cannot substitute for proof of a criminal conspiracy – Appeals allowed. [Relied on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 (8) SCC 149; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (20) SCC 522; Paras 7, 24, 25]

Cause Title: TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (and connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Prathap, Adv. Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. Mr. Kushal U, Adv. Mr. Shivam Parashar, Adv. Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Tarannum Cheema, AAG Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Tarannum Cheema, A.A.G. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Shukla, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR