The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of two individuals, Anand Jakkappa Pujari and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli, who were accused of kidnapping and murdering a woman in 2013. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, observing that the “last seen together” theory cannot be the sole basis for conviction when the accompanying evidence of “discovery” fails to meet the strict legal requirements of the Indian Evidence Act.
Background of the Case
The case originated on March 25, 2013, when Basanagowda (PW-1) filed a missing person report regarding his mother, Bebakka. It was alleged that Bebakka’s elder brother, Kalappa (Accused No. 1), had a financial dispute with her involving a debt of ₹20 lakhs and 30 grams of gold. On March 27, 2013, charred skeletal remains were found in the Mullur forest. Subsequent DNA profiling confirmed the remains belonged to the deceased.
The prosecution alleged that Kalappa, with the help of the appellants (Accused Nos. 2 and 4) and another co-accused, kidnapped Bebakka in a Maruti 800 car, murdered her by strangulation with a plastic wire rope, and burnt her body using petrol to destroy evidence. The Trial Court and the High Court of Karnataka had previously convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), 404 (misappropriation of property), and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that there was no cogent evidence to connect them to the crime. They contended that while Kalappa might have had a motive, they had no personal enmity with the deceased. They further challenged the “discovery” of the weapon and gold ornaments, asserting that these were made at the instance of Kalappa and not the appellants. They also highlighted the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for their identification by witness PW-7.
The State of Karnataka, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete. The State relied on the “last seen” testimony of PW-7, who allegedly saw the appellants getting into the car with the deceased and Kalappa. The State also pointed to the “joint discovery” of the murder spot and the site where the body was burnt as evidence of their involvement.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinized two primary circumstances relied upon by the lower courts: the “last seen together” theory and the “discovery of fact” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
1. On “Last Seen Together”
The Court noted that PW-7 claimed to have seen the appellants boarding the car at Ranna Circle around 5:30 PM on the day of the incident. However, the Bench observed:
“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 Bench emphasized that relying solely on this circumstance to affirm a conviction for murder would be “too risky.”
2. On Discovery and Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The Court found significant procedural lapses in how the discoveries were recorded. It noted that the investigating officer had recorded “confessional statements” that were hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Regarding the “joint discovery” panchanama, the Court observed that it was Accused No. 1 (Kalappa) who primarily led the police to the spots.
Citing Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Court clarified the law on simultaneous disclosures:
“Joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus… The deposition in regard to the information given by the two accused may be exposed to criticism from the standpoint of credibility and its nexus with discovery.”
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the “authorship of concealment” for the appellants. It noted that the contents of a panchanama are not substantive evidence; rather, what the witnesses state in court is what matters. In this case, the panch witness (PW-4) did not specify the exact words spoken by the appellants.
Conclusion and Decision
The Court concluded that after discarding the faulty discovery evidence, only the “last seen” circumstance remained, which was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Reflecting on the standard of proof, the Court quoted the established legal principle:
“The prosecution case ‘may be true’ but it is not that of ‘must be true’, and there is a long distance to travel between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. They were ordered to be released forthwith.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar v. The State of Karnataka (with connected appeal)
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2024
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Date: April 27, 2026
