Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough for Conviction

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (2025) set aside a murder conviction, holding that disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) cannot be the sole basis for conviction when the complete chain of circumstantial evidence has not been established by the prosecution. 

What was the Background of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case involved an alleged murder where the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. 
• The main evidence consisted of disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of the dead body based on those statements, and surrounding circumstances including motive, last seen evidence, and conspiracy. 
• The Trial Court examined the evidence and acquitted the accused persons. 
• The Trial Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the recovery and disclosure statements were insufficient for conviction. 
• The Trial Court found that key witnesses, especially the sole "last seen" witness (PW-5), were unreliable. 
• The Trial Court also noted inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's timeline of events. 
• The Karnataka High Court reversed the Trial Court's acquittal order. 
• The High Court treated the Section 27 disclosure statements and the recovery of the body as decisive links connecting the accused to the crime, despite the absence of a fully established chain of circumstances. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's reversal of acquittal, the accused persons appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that a conviction cannot occur solely based on disclosure statements unless the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. 
• The bench observed 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." 
• The Court found that the sole eyewitness PW-5 could not be considered reliable. 
• The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal solely on the basis of disclosure statements under Section 27. 
• The Court noted that the High Court failed to properly examine whether the prosecution succeeded in completing the entire chain of circumstances to establish the appellants' connection with the crime. 
• The Court applied the settled principle 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." 
• The Court further held that "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 Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decision to acquit the appellants, holding that the conviction was founded primarily on so-called confessional statements and doubtful discovery, without satisfying the settled principles governing circumstantial evidence. 
• The appeals were allowed and the conviction was set aside.

What are the Disclosure Statements? 

About: 

• Disclosure Statement is provided under Section 27 of the IEA.   
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.

Section 27 of IEA:  

• This is in the form of proviso to other provisions. 
• The fact should be discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of any offence. 
• The Accused should be in the custody of police. 
• So much information as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. 
• This is irrespective of whether the statement amounts to confession or not.  
• In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947), Sir John Beaumont held that Section 27 is proviso to only Section 26 of IEA.   
• However, in the recent times in the case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerela (2022), the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is an exception to preceding Sections particularly, Section 25 and Section 26.

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 discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in 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 the 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.

Which Provision of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement?  

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
• Section 23 (2) provides: 
• No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. 
• Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA? 

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976): 
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. 
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. 
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. 
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024): 
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows: 
  • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in 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 the custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible. 
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.