The Supreme Court has acquitted two convicts, Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar (Accused No. 2) and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli (Accused No. 4), in a gruesome murder case from Karnataka while laying down important principles on the admissibility of joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by multiple accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivering the judgment for the Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3788 of 2022) and Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15426 of 2025), set aside the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2013 and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100096 and 100109 of 2018 dated 22.12.2021, and directed the immediate release of both appellants if not required in any other case.
The prosecution alleged that on 23 March 2013 the deceased Bebakka, aged 52, was abducted by her elder brother Kalappa Hanamanth Kamakeri (Accused No. 1) along with the two appellants and another co-accused, murdered, and her body burnt in the Mullur forest area to destroy evidence. The motive was said to be avoidance of repayment of a ₹20 lakh loan and return of a 30-gram gold chain given by the deceased to Accused No. 1, coupled with a family property dispute. The entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory, alleged recoveries, DNA identification of charred skeletal remains, and disclosure statements by all four accused. The Trial Court convicted all four under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction, but only the present two appellants approached the Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court clarified that joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by different accused persons are not per se inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it emphasised that the information given by each accused must distinctly relate to a fact thereby discovered. Referring to its earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 and the recent judgment in Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka (2025), the Court held that a fact can be discovered only once and there cannot be a “rediscovery” of the same place or object already pointed out by one accused and then attributed to others. Where multiple accused point to the identical spot without leading to any distinct fact from different places, the guarantee of truthfulness contemplated by Section 27 is absent, and such discovery evidence cannot be used against the other accused. In the present case, the panch witness had not deposed about the specific statements allegedly made by each of the appellants. The so-called joint discovery of the place of murder and the place where the body was burnt was essentially effected at the instance of Accused No. 1 alone. The subsequent pointing out by the appellants to the same spots did not amount to any fresh discovery at their instance and was therefore inadmissible under Section 27 against them.
The Court further held that the last-seen evidence, which was the primary circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, was by itself insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of any other reliable incriminating material connecting these two appellants to the crime. The chain of circumstantial evidence was found to be incomplete and did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that it would be too risky to uphold the conviction solely on the basis of the last-seen circumstance and the flawed discovery evidence.
With these findings, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court insofar as they related to Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli, and acquitted them of all charges. The judgment is reportable and is expected to serve as an authoritative precedent on the interpretation and application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in cases involving multiple accused and joint disclosures.
Case Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka with Mahadev Sidram Hullolli v. State of Karnataka
Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3788 of 2022) with Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15426 of 2025)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Citation: 2026 INSC 417 (Reportable)
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 