Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadarv.State of Karnataka

Legal Analysis: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar vs. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 INSC 417
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Decision: April 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against High Court judgment affirming conviction under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants (original accused nos. 2 and 4) were convicted along with two other co-accused for the murder of a woman (the sister of accused no. 1). The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: motive, last seen together, and discovery of incriminating articles (plastic rope, petrol can, gold ornaments, car) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the only circumstances against them were (i) they were allegedly last seen with the deceased (as per PW‑7’s testimony), and (ii) a joint disclosure statement leading to discoveries. The Court found that the discovery evidence was not properly proved in accordance with Section 27 – the panch witness did not depose about the exact words uttered by each appellant, and the discoveries were essentially at the instance of accused no. 1, not the appellants. The circumstance of “last seen together”, without any corroboration, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Court applied the five-principle test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar vs. State of Karnataka (with connected appeal Mahadev Sidram Hullolli vs. State of Karnataka) Criminal Appeal Nos.1864 of 2024 and 2180 of 2026 Bench Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan Date of Decision April 27, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 417 Appeal From Judgment dated 22.12.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100096 and 100109 of 2018

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping for murder), 404 (dishonest misappropriation of property of deceased), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 34 (common intention).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 26 (confession to police officer not admissible), Section 27 (so much of information as leads to discovery of fact admissible), Section 101-103 (burden of proof).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 313 (statement of accused), Section 378 (appeal against acquittal – not applicable here).

Precedents Cited (extensively):

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Five golden principles for conviction on circumstantial evidence: circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with hypothesis of guilt, of conclusive nature, exclude every other hypothesis, chain of evidence complete.

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Joint or simultaneous disclosure statements are not per se inadmissible under Section 27, but courts must evaluate credibility.

• Nagamma v. State of Karnataka (2025) – Affirmed Navjot Sandhu; simultaneous disclosures not out of Section 27.

• Ramanand @Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. (2023) 16 SCC 510 – Proper manner of drawing discovery panchanama: first part at police station with exact words of accused, second part at place of discovery.

• Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. (1983) 1 SCC 143 – Investigating officer must state who gave what words when dealing with multiple accused.

• Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (1946) – Locus classicus on Section 27: “fact discovered” includes place and knowledge of accused; information as to past history not admissible.

• Lachhman Singh v. State (1952) 1 SCC 362 – Discovery evidence admissible even if multiple accused give information, provided the initial pointing out is clear.

• State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 – Last seen theory: time gap must be so small that possibility of any other person committing crime becomes impossible.

• Murli v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 9 SCC 417 – Contents of panchanama not substantive evidence; what is substantive is what the panch witness deposes in court.

What the Judgment is About: The judgment reiterates the strict standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, especially when the prosecution relies on “last seen together” and “discovery under Section 27”. It holds that discovery evidence against a co‑accused cannot be mechanically accepted unless the prosecution proves the exact words uttered by that accused and the distinct fact discovered as a consequence. Mere presence at the scene or being “last seen” is insufficient without corroboration. The judgment also clarifies that joint or simultaneous disclosure statements are not inadmissible per se, but the prosecution must overcome practical difficulties of proving who said what.

3. Relevant Facts

• Deceased: Bebakka (aged about 52 years). She had lent ₹20 lakhs to her elder brother Kalappa (accused no. 1) and had disputes with him over repayment and family property division.

• Incident date: 23.03.2013. The deceased left home, visited her daughter, then her younger brother Suresh, then went with accused no. 1 Kalappa to a gold shop and a utensil shop. She went missing after 5.30 PM.

• Recovery of skeletal remains (27.03.2013): Forest guard (PW‑2) spotted burnt bones, a burnt saree, bangles, and a skull in the Mullur forest area. FIR registered. DNA report confirmed the bones were of the deceased (mother of PW‑1).

• Second complaint (03.04.2013): PW‑1 (son of deceased) filed complaint naming Kalappa, Anand (appellant no. 1), Imamsab (accused no. 3), and Mahadev (appellant no. 2) alleging abduction, murder, and burning of body.

• Arrests (04.04.2013): All four accused were arrested. The prosecution claimed they made voluntary statements leading to discoveries: plastic wire rope (MO‑10), plastic petrol can (MO‑11), the silver Maruti car (MO‑car), and gold ornaments (MO‑12 to MO‑19) – all at the instance of accused no. 1 Kalappa.

• Discovery panchanamas: Exhibits P‑8, P‑50 to P‑53. The panch witness PW‑4 Sachin Malali deposed about the discovery process. The I.O. (PW‑24) stated that all accused separately showed the same spots (place of killing and place of burning).

• Last seen witness: PW‑7 Ramappa deposed that at about 5.30 PM on the fateful day, he saw Kalappa’s silver Maruti car, with the deceased inside, and saw the appellants (accused nos. 2 and 4) along with accused no. 3 boarding the car.

• Trial Court and High Court: Both convicted all four accused under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: Only accused nos. 2 and 4 (the appellants) appealed; accused nos. 1 and 3 did not challenge their conviction (or their appeals were not before the Court).

4. Issues

1. Whether the circumstance of “last seen together” alone – without any corroboration – is sufficient to convict the appellants for murder.

2. Whether the discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was properly proved against the appellants, especially when the panch witness did not depose about the exact words uttered by each appellant and the discoveries were primarily made at the instance of accused no. 1.

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence excluding every hypothesis of innocence, as required by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Last seen together – insufficient without corroboration: The Court held that the “last seen together” theory requires the time gap between the last sighting and the finding of the dead body to be so small that the possibility of any other person committing the crime becomes impossible. Here, even assuming PW‑7’s testimony is credible, the mere fact that the appellants were seen boarding the car does not by itself lead to the inference that they committed the murder. There must be something more – some other incriminating circumstance – to connect them to the crime. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Satish (2005). The Court found no such corroboration (Para 41-44, 69).

• Discovery evidence not proved in accordance with Section 27: The Court examined the oral testimony of PW‑4 (panch witness) and PW‑24 (I.O.). It noted that:
  The panch witness did not depose about the exact words uttered by each appellant in his presence. The first part of the discovery panchanama (which records the statement of the accused) was not properly proved (Para 47-50, 63-64).
  The discoveries – plastic rope, petrol can, gold ornaments, car – were all made at the instance of accused no. 1 Kalappa, not the appellants. The appellants merely “pointed out the same spot” after Kalappa had already led the police there. This cannot be said to be a “discovery” of a fact “in consequence of information” given by the appellants; the fact was already known (Para 50, 57, 64).
  Joint or simultaneous disclosure statements are not per se inadmissible (Navjot Sandhu), but the prosecution must overcome the difficulty of proving which accused said what. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to attribute specific information to each appellant (Para 58-60, 66-67).

• Contents of panchanama not substantive evidence: The Court reiterated the settled law that what is substantive evidence is the deposition of the witness in court, not the contents of the panchanama. The panch witness (PW‑4) did not state any distinctive statement made by the appellants. Therefore, the discovery evidence could not be used against them (Para 67-68).

• Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete: Applying the five principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court held that the circumstances against the appellants were not “fully established” with the required degree of certainty. The prosecution’s case “may be true” but not “must be true”. The distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and cannot be bridged by weak evidence (Para 69-70).

• Appellants had no motive: The Court noted that the motive was solely against accused no. 1 Kalappa (financial disputes with his sister). The appellants had no axe to grind against the deceased. This further weakened the prosecution’s case (Para 33-35).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Discovery evidence against a co‑accused cannot be automatically inferred from a joint disclosure statement: Even if multiple accused simultaneously give information leading to discovery, the prosecution must still prove, for each accused, the exact words uttered by him that distinctly relate to the fact discovered. A vague statement that “all accused led us to the spot” is insufficient.

• If a fact has already been discovered from one accused, a subsequent “re‑discovery” from another accused is not admissible under Section 27: Once the police know the location of an incriminating object from the first accused, the same object cannot be “discovered” again from a second accused. The information must lead to an independent discovery.

• Reaffirmation of the “last seen together” standard: The time gap must be so small that it excludes the possibility of any other person intervening. Even then, the circumstance alone is not enough; courts must look for corroboration, especially when other incriminating evidence is weak.

• Reaffirmation of the five Sharad principles: The judgment reminds trial and appellate courts that each circumstance in a circumstantial evidence case must be “fully established” (not merely “may be proved”), and the chain must be complete “excluding every possible hypothesis” of innocence.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Evaluation of PW‑7’s testimony: The Court scrutinised the deposition of the “last seen” witness. PW‑7 admitted that he knew the complainant’s family, and that his statement was recorded 10‑12 days after the incident. He did not know the names of the appellants (accused nos. 3 and 4). The Court did not outright discard the testimony but noted that without corroboration, it was insufficient (Para 38-44).

• Deficiencies in the discovery panchanama: The Court noted that the I.O. called the panch witnesses only after the accused were in custody. The panch witness (PW‑4) said: “Police told us that all the accused have committed murder … they are going to prepare panchanama.” This tainted the entire process. Moreover, the exact words uttered by each accused were not recorded in the panchanama or spoken of in evidence. The Court quoted extensively from Ramanand and Mohd. Abdul Hafeez to highlight the correct procedure (Para 45-55).

• Joint disclosure – not a chorus: The Court accepted that simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible, following Navjot Sandhu and Nagamma. However, it held that on the facts of this case, the evidence did not satisfy the requirement that each accused’s information “distinctly” related to a fact discovered. The appellants merely followed Kalappa’s lead (Para 58-62, 66).

• Burden of proof in circumstantial evidence: The Court quoted from Sharad at length and also cited principles from Wigmore and Kenny (Para 27-31). It emphasised that the prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the defence; it must stand on its own feet.

• Motive as a double-edged sword: The Court noted that while motive is not essential to prove guilt, its absence in relation to the appellants (who had no personal enmity with the deceased) was a factor that made the case even weaker (Para 33-35).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a masterclass in the evaluation of circumstantial evidence. It meticulously examines the deficiencies in the discovery procedure – a common pitfall in criminal trials. By insisting on the exact words of the accused (as required by Mohd. Abdul Hafeez and Ramanand), the Court sets a high standard for admissibility under Section 27, thereby preventing misuse. The refusal to convict on “last seen alone” is consistent with the long line of precedent that requires corroboration. The judgment also correctly holds that a “re‑discovery” of the same fact from a different accused adds nothing.

Potential concerns: One could argue that the Court was overly strict in requiring the exact words of each accused, given that the panch witness (PW‑4) was an independent witness and the discoveries (the spots) were physically pointed out by the appellants as well. The I.O. testified that each accused was taken separately and showed the same place. In a practical sense, that should be sufficient. However, the Court’s strict approach is consistent with the law – Section 27 is an exception to the rule against confessions to police, and exceptions must be strictly construed. Moreover, the appellants were not the main conspirators; the evidence against them was thin to begin with.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by defence counsel to challenge discovery evidence in cases where the prosecution fails to prove the exact words of each accused or where multiple accused are involved in a single discovery exercise. It also strengthens the requirement that “last seen together” must be accompanied by other incriminating circumstances. Prosecutors will need to ensure that discovery panchanamas are meticulously drafted and that panch witnesses depose to the exact information given by each accused individually.

9. Final Outcome

Appeals allowed. The impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22.12.2021 is set aside. The appellants (Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli) are acquitted of all charges. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By defence counsel in circumstantial evidence cases: Challenge discovery evidence by scrutinising the panchanama and the deposition of the panch witness. If the panch witness does not recite the exact words uttered by the accused, argue that the prosecution has not complied with Section 27. Also, if a fact (e.g., location of a weapon) was already discovered through one accused, argue that a subsequent “discovery” by another accused is not admissible under Section 27 – there cannot be a “rediscovery”.

• By prosecution: Ensure that the investigating officer records the exact statement of each accused in the presence of independent witnesses, preferably separately. The panch witness should be able to depose to the precise words used by each accused. Also, if the last seen witness is the only link, ensure that there is additional corroboration (e.g., forensic evidence, motive specific to that accused, or conduct evidence).

• By courts when evaluating circumstantial evidence: Apply the five Sharad principles strictly. Do not convict on “may be true”. Require the prosecution to prove each circumstance “beyond reasonable doubt”, not merely on a preponderance of probability. If the chain has missing links, acquit.

11. Court Lines

“A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established…; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused…; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused…” (Para 31, quoting Sharad Birdhichand Sarda)

“What is most relevant to note is that according to the PW‑4, the first person to get down from the police vehicle was Kalappa, and it was Kalappa who led the police party … and pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was burnt. … Later the other three accused including the appellants before us one after the other pointed out the same spot.” (Para 49-50)

“The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.” (Para 42, quoting State of U.P. v. Satish)

“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’.” (Para 69)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the defence: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, first isolate each circumstance and test it against the Sharad principles. If the prosecution relies on “last seen together”, highlight the time gap and lack of corroboration. If the prosecution relies on discovery under Section 27, demand that the panch witness depose to the exact words uttered by the accused (not the conclusion of the police). If multiple accused are involved, insist on separate disclosures. Also, examine the panchanama – if it merely states “the accused led us to the spot” without the specific information, move to exclude the evidence. Use this judgment to argue that a “rediscovery” of a fact already known is not admissible.

For the prosecution: To successfully use Section 27, follow the procedure laid down in Ramanand: (i) call two independent witnesses to the police station; (ii) in their presence, ask the accused to make a statement; (iii) record the exact words verbatim; (iv) then proceed to the place of discovery; (v) have the panch witness depose to the exact words in court. If you have multiple accused, treat them separately – do not rely on a joint panchanama. Also, when relying on “last seen”, ensure that the time gap is minimal and that there is additional incriminating evidence (e.g., motive, recovery of stolen property, scientific evidence). Do not rely solely on one witness.