Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka;  2026 INSC 417 - S.27 Evidence Act - Joint Statements

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27- The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are broadly as under:- 1. Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; 2. Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; 3. The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and 4. So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (Para 52) More than one accused makes an oral statement giving the same type of information one after the other in quick succession- Even in such a case, unless the guarantee of the truth and voluntary nature of such statements is obtained by the discovery of a distinct fact, the provisions of Section 27 would not, in any manner, help the prosecution. Take for instance, two or three accused persons make statements in quick succession giving an information of some or similar nature, and then proceed to discover different facts from different places. In such a case even though the statements made by them is treated as “joint” yet the discovery is not joint because it is the discovery of different facts from different places. Such discoveries guarantee the protection contemplated by Section 27 and therefore can be of good use to the prosecution. (Para 65) contents of the panchanama are not substantive evidence. (Para 67)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106- The circumstance of “last seen together” does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime. The Courts should look for some corroboration. (Para 43)

Accomplice - An accomplice is a person who voluntarily and knowingly participates in the commission of a crime with the principal offender. An accomplice is one who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission of a crime or one who knowingly or voluntarily helps and cooperates with others in the commission of the crime. In other words, a guilty associate or partner in crime or who is somehow connected with the crime. He is an associate in the crime committed whether as a principal or accessory.  Accomplice is categorized as follows:- i. Principal in the First Degree ii. Principal in the Second Degree iii. Accessory Before the Fact iv. Accessory After the Fact. By a ‘principal in the first degree’ means the actual offender. In other words, the man in whose guilty mind lay the latest blamable mental cause of the criminal act. Almost always, of course, he will be the man by whom this act itself was done. A ‘principal in the second degree’ is a person who aids and abets another in the perpetration of a crime and common law has always been equally punishable with the actual door of the deed. In other words, the principal in the second degree is one by whom the actual perpetrator of the felony is aided and abetted at the very time when it is committed. (Para 33-36)

Circumstantial Evidence- 1. Circumstantial evidence to justify conviction must be consistent with any reasonable or rational hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 2. When the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating facts is a more natural and probable hypothesis than the other, the onus of offering an explanation for the incriminating facts lies upon the accused. If he does not offer any explanation, or falsely denies the very existence of the incriminating facts, it is itself a circumstantial fact against him, even if the court is in a position to imagine an explanation. The guilt is the legitimate inference from the incriminating facts and the added circumstantial fact of failure or refusal to offer an explanation for the incriminating facts because it is not reasonable or rational to say that the accused would fail or refuse to offer an explanation consistent with his innocence if he could. It is immaterial in such a case whether the Court can imagine an explanation or not. 3. If the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating facts is a less natural or probable hypothesis than the other, the Court cannot draw it and the accused must be acquitted whether he offers any explanation or not. 4. If the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating facts is as much a natural or probable hypothesis as any other, the accused may be called upon to explain and if he fails or refuses, the Court may treat it as an additional circumstantial fact and infer his guilt. Or it may take udicial notice of the other hypothesis even without any explanation by the accused and acquit him. (Para 30)