Joint Statements by Different Accused

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan of the Supreme Court, in Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka (2026), held that joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by different accused persons are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only if each such statement leads to the discovery of a distinct and relevant fact connected with the crime. The Court further held that a fact once discovered cannot be "rediscovered" against another accused, and that the mere last-seen circumstance, without corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction. The appellants were ultimately acquitted.

What was the Background of Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka (2026) Case? 

• A woman went missing from Karnataka on March 23, 2013; her charred skeletal remains were discovered four days later in a forest area. 
• The prosecution alleged that her brother, having borrowed a large sum of money and gold from her, conspired with three other accused to avoid repayment. 
• It was alleged that the accused abducted and murdered the victim, then burnt her body to destroy evidence. 
• The prosecution relied upon a joint disclosure statement made by all four accused, who were taken together in a police vehicle and shown — one by one — the spot where the victim was allegedly killed and her body burnt. 
• The trial court convicted all four accused; the High Court upheld the conviction. 
• Two of the accused filed criminal appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the evidentiary validity of the joint disclosure statements and the sufficiency of the last-seen evidence.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Joint Statements Not Per Se Inadmissible:  
  • Referring to State NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) the Court held that joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 
  • The Court acknowledged the practical difficulty in ascertaining exactly who said what in such joint statements, and reiterated from Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka (2025) that greater care must be exercised when evaluating joint disclosures. 
• Requirement of Specificity and Distinctiveness:  
  • The panch witness in the present case had not deposed about the specific statement made by each accused, and there was nothing to indicate that any distinct fact was discovered at the instance of the appellants. 
  • The Court held that the information given by each accused must directly and distinctly relate to the fact discovered; a fact can be "discovered" only once and cannot be repeatedly relied upon against multiple accused on the same discovery. 
• No Rediscovery Permissible:  
  • Where a fact has already been discovered, any subsequent information given in that regard does not lead to a fresh discovery and is therefore inadmissible under Section 27. 
  • Where the information is already in the possession of the police, its repetition by another accused does not constitute a new discovery. 
• Exception — Different Facts from Different Places:  
  • Where multiple accused make statements in quick succession and each leads to the discovery of a different fact from a different place, the statements may be treated as "joint" yet the discoveries remain distinct and admissible — as recognised in Lachhman Singh v. State (1952) 1 SCC 362 and State v. Chhotelal Mohanlal AIR 1955 Nag 71. 
  • The guarantee of voluntariness and truth under Section 27 is satisfied only when the discovery of a distinct fact flows from each accused's statement. 
• Present Case — Joint Discovery of the Same Fact:  
  • In this case, the evidence disclosed a purely joint discovery of the same mental fact by all four accused simultaneously, making it impossible to attribute any distinct discovery to any particular accused. 
  • Accordingly, the discovery evidence of the two places — where the deceased was killed and where the body was burnt — could not be utilised against the appellants. 
• Last-Seen Evidence Insufficient Alone:  
  • The primary circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that the accused were last seen with the deceased before her disappearance. 
  • The Court held that it would be "too risky" to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of last-seen evidence in the absence of additional incriminating material linking the appellants to the crime. 
• Outcome: 
  • The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction of the two appellants, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that neither the joint disclosure statements nor the last-seen evidence, standing alone, were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 

About: 

• Section 27 of the IEA created a limited exception to the rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. 
• It permitted only that portion of an accused’s statement to be proved which distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a result of the information given. 

Key Provisions of Section 27 of IEA: 

• Applies only when the accused is in police custody. 
• Permits proving only that part of the information which directly leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (e.g., a weapon, stolen property). 
• The rationale is that discovery lends credibility to that part of the statement. 

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:  

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:  
  • Firstly, there should be a discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant as a consequence of information received from the accused person.  
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information, the accused should be in custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.  
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:   
    • The “place” from where the object is produced. 
    • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 

• The content of IEA Section 27 is now included as a proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Confessions to Police). 
• This proviso keeps the same rule: 
  Only the part of the accused’s statement that directly leads to discovery is admissible.