-
by Admin
28 April 2026 11:17 AM
"Joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 27, 2026, held that joint or simultaneous discovery statements made by multiple accused persons are generally unreliable unless the prosecution proves the specific words and authorship of concealment for each individual.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that while joint disclosures are not per se inadmissible, they face inherent evidentiary difficulties, as it is improbable for multiple individuals to provide identical information simultaneously in a "chorus." The Court set aside the conviction of two appellants in a murder case, noting that the "last seen together" theory alone cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The case originated from the disappearance of one Bebakka, whose brother, Kalappa (Accused No. 1), allegedly owed her Rs 20 lakhs. Her charred remains were later found in a forest, and the prosecution alleged that Kalappa, along with the appellants and another individual, abducted and murdered her to escape the debt. The Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court convicted the accused based on the "last seen" theory and the recovery of ornaments and the weapon at their instance.
The primary question before the Court was whether a joint discovery statement involving multiple accused satisfies the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court was also called upon to determine if the "last seen together" theory, when standing alone without a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Strict Standards for Circumstantial Evidence
The Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the facts must satisfy the "five golden principles" laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The Bench noted that the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It emphasized that there is a long legal distance between a case that "may be true" and one that "must be true," and the prosecution had failed to bridge this gap.
"Last Seen" Theory Requires Corroboration
The Bench observed that while the deceased was allegedly seen with the accused near Ranna Circle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to an irresistible inference of guilt. The Court held that the "last seen" theory is a weak piece of evidence when there is a significant time gap or when the possibility of other persons intervening exists. It noted that it would be hazardous to convict the appellants, who were alleged accomplices without a personal motive, solely on this ground.
Court Explains The Scope Of Section 27 Evidence Act
The Court delved deep into the mechanics of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting it is an exception to the ban on police confessions under Sections 25 and 26. For a discovery to be valid, the information must relate "distinctly" to the fact discovered. The Bench highlighted that the "fact discovered" is not just the object itself, but the place from which it is produced and the accused's knowledge of that concealment.
"The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact."
The Failure of Joint Discovery Statements
The Court criticized the practice of recording "joint disclosures" where multiple accused are said to have pointed out the same spot or object. Citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Bench remarked that such disclosures are often a "myth" because two people do not speak in a chorus. It held that the Investigating Officer must record who gave the information first and what exact words were used. In this case, the discovery was primarily at the instance of Accused No. 1, rendering the "simultaneous" claims against the appellants legally fragile.
Investigating Officer Must Prove Precise Words
The Court noted that the Investigating Officer failed to depose the exact words uttered by the appellants at the police station. It observed that if a fact is already known to the police or has been discovered at the instance of one accused, it cannot be "rediscovered" at the instance of another. Since the ornaments and vehicle were linked to Accused No. 1, the subsequent "joint" pointing out by the appellants carried no evidentiary value under Section 27.
"The prosecution case ‘may be true’ but it is not that of ‘must be true’, and there is a long distance to travel between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’."
Substantive Evidence vs. Contents of Panchanamas
The Bench clarified that the contents of a discovery panchanama are not substantive evidence. What matters is the oral testimony of the panch witnesses and the police officers in the witness box. In this case, the panch witness did not testify to any specific statement made by the appellants, leading the Court to conclude that the safeguards of Section 27 were entirely missing.
Final Orders and Acquittal
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events. It found that the appellants had no personal motive to kill the deceased and their alleged involvement was based on flawed discovery procedures. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.
The Supreme Court underscored that criminal courts must exercise utmost vigilance to ensure that innocent persons are not convicted on the basis of vague or "chorus" statements. By clarifying that joint discoveries under Section 27 require individual authorship and precise recording, the ruling reinforces the protection of the accused against custodial fabrications. The acquittal highlights that the "last seen" theory cannot bypass the requirement for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
Date of Decision: 27 April 2026
