Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements U/S. 27 Evidence Act Alone is Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163


(viii) The prosecution case mainly rested upon the deposition given by PW-5 so-called eye-witness as well as on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive, last seen theory, recovery, and conduct of the Accused were sought to be relied upon to establish the chain of circumstances.

(ix) Upon an exhaustive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all the Accused of all charges. The Trial Court recorded findings that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the Accused. The alleged motive was held to be weak and speculative; the theory of conspiracy was found to be unsubstantiated; and crucial links such as last seen together and recovery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.


23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have mainly placed reliance upon confessional statements of the Accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal. We are of the view 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. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the Accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the Accused had committed the alleged offences. We are of the further view that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based upon the evidence led by the prosecution.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.


Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026