Simultaneous Disclosure Statements need Stricter Scrutiny

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice KV Viswanathan  in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka (2025) acquitted three accused persons convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), highlighting crucial principles governing circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).  

What was the Background of Nagamma v. State of Karnataka (2025) Case? 

The case involved a brutal murder arising from an alleged loan dispute between two policemen. 

Facts of the Case: 

• A1 (policeman) allegedly took a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased (also a policeman). 
• The deceased persistently demanded repayment of the loan. 
• A2 (wife of A1) allegedly called the deceased to her home on the pretext of repaying the debt on 10.03.2006. 
• Around 2 AM on 11.03.2006, the victim was allegedly made immobile by throwing chili powder and hacked to death with choppers. 
• A2 went to the police station after sunrise and confessed to the crime. 
• The prosecution alleged that A3 and A4 (brother and brother-in-law of A1) assisted in the murder. 

Trial Court Proceedings: 

• Prosecution examined 24 witnesses and marked 33 documents and 16 material objects. 
• A1 was acquitted due to perfect alibi (night duty at another police station). 
• A2 to A4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
• High Court affirmed the conviction in appeal. 

What were the Court's  Observations? 

On Circumstantial Evidence: 

• The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain of circumstances with cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link leading only to the guilt of the accused. 
• Key Principles: 
  • Must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. 
  • Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • The chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken. 

On Extra-Judicial Confessions: 

Critical Finding:  

• All alleged extra-judicial confessions were made within the police station and were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 

Court's Reasoning: 

• Confessions to police officers (PW-15, PW-17) barred under Section 25. 
• Confessions made in police custody without magistrate's presence barred under Section 26. 
• Location within police station made all confessions suspect. 

On Section 27 Recovery: 

• The Court noted that recovery under Section 27 includes not only the physical object but also the place and knowledge of concealment, which must be clearly established. 

Final Decision: 

Acquittal Ordered: The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted all accused, holding: 

1. Motive not established - Key witnesses unreliable and contradictory. 
2. Presence of dead body at accused's house doubtful - Witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements. 
3. Extra-judicial confessions inadmissible - All made within police station premises. 
4. Section 27 recovery unreliable - Simultaneous disclosures, hostile witnesses, no forensic link. 
5. Circumstantial evidence incomplete - Failed to form unbreakable chain pointing only to guilt.

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

About:  

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved.  
• It states that provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence 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 thereby discovered, may be proved. 
• Section 27 operates as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, creating a specific exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers while in custody are inadmissible as evidence. 
• 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.  

Provision in BSA: 

• In Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) this Section is included as provision to Section 23.  

Purpose:  

• The section serves a dual purpose:  
  • It protects against police misconduct by requiring factual confirmation of confessions while also ensuring that valuable evidence is not excluded merely because it was obtained through information provided by an accused in custody. 

Case Laws:  

• In 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.  
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA.