Section 27 of the Evidence Act: Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence, Reiterates Supreme Court

Introduction

In a significant reaffirmation of settled principles governing circumstantial evidence and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Supreme Court of India has held that disclosure statements made to the police cannot, by themselves, form the sole basis of a criminal conviction unless the entire chain of circumstances is complete. Setting aside a murder conviction upheld by the Karnataka High Court, the Court underscored that reliance on “so-called confessional statements” and doubtful recoveries, without corroborative evidence, violates established criminal jurisprudence.

The judgment, delivered on January 16, 2026, in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., is a crucial reminder of the limited evidentiary value of Section 27 disclosures and the high threshold required to reverse an order of acquittal.

Background of the Case

The case arose out of an alleged murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution primarily relied on:

• Disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
• Recovery of the dead body purportedly pursuant to those statements
• Ancillary circumstances such as motive, last seen evidence, and conspiracy

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that:

• The chain of circumstances was incomplete
• The disclosure statements and recovery were insufficient for conviction
• The sole “last seen” witness (PW-5) was unreliable
• There were inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s timeline

However, the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, treating the Section 27 disclosures and the recovery as decisive links connecting the accused to the crime.

Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine:

1. Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of disclosure statements under Section 27 and alleged recoveries.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing an acquittal without establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
3. Whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi answered these questions in the negative and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal.

The Court categorically held that:

“A conviction cannot be recorded merely by relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused and discovery of the dead body which is also not duly proved.”

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court committed a serious error by treating Section 27 disclosures as conclusive, without independently examining whether the prosecution had completed the entire chain of circumstances.

Scope and Limitations of Section 27 of the Evidence Act

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a narrow exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible. Only that portion of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible.

Reiterating long-standing precedent, the Supreme Court clarified that:

• Section 27 does not elevate a disclosure statement to substantive evidence
• Recovery alone is not proof of guilt
• The discovered fact must be clearly connected to the accused and the offence

In the present case, even the recovery of the dead body was found to be doubtful and inadequately proved, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Importance of Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

The Court emphasised that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish:

1. Each circumstance conclusively
2. A continuous and unbroken chain
3. That the circumstances are consistent only with the guilt of the accused
4. That they exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence

The Supreme Court found that none of these requirements were satisfied. The alleged motive, last seen evidence, and conspiracy were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the sole eyewitness was unreliable.

Appellate Courts and Interference with Acquittal

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s reiteration of the limited scope of appellate interference with acquittals. Justice Pancholi, authoring the judgment, observed:

“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 reaffirmed that mere possibility of an alternative view does not justify overturning an acquittal, especially when the Trial Court’s view is a plausible one.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling has wide implications for criminal trials, particularly those relying on police-recorded disclosures:

• Reinforces the constitutional safeguards against coerced confessions
• Prevents misuse of Section 27 as a shortcut to conviction
• Strengthens the presumption of innocence
• Upholds the sanctity of Trial Court findings in acquittal cases

The judgment also serves as a caution to investigating agencies against building cases predominantly on disclosure statements without independent corroboration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka is a reaffirmation of foundational principles of criminal law: proof beyond reasonable doubt, limited evidentiary value of police disclosures, and judicial restraint in appellate review of acquittals.

By holding that Section 27 disclosure statements cannot sustain a conviction in isolation, the Court has once again prioritised fairness, due process, and evidentiary rigor over procedural shortcuts. The ruling will undoubtedly guide future courts in evaluating circumstantial evidence and ensure that convictions are based on legally sustainable foundations rather than conjecture.

Also Read

ASG Raja Thakare Appointed to Assist Lok Sabha Inquiry Committee in Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment Proceedings

5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!