New Delhi, September 22, 2025 – The Supreme Court has held that simultaneous disclosure statements made by multiple accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must be subjected to greater scrutiny, as such confessions are highly vulnerable to tutoring and fabrication.
A Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that while joint or near-simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible, courts must exercise “heightened caution” before relying on them. The burden rests on the prosecution to establish that the disclosures were genuine, independent, and corroborated by other material evidence.
Background of the Case
The ruling came in the appeal titled Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 930), where three individuals had been convicted in connection with the murder of a police constable in Karnataka.
A key piece of evidence against the accused was the recovery of a chopper (murder weapon). The prosecution claimed that both A3 and A4 had disclosed its location. However, the Investigating Officer did not clarify whether the disclosures were made sequentially or simultaneously.
Independent witnesses later turned hostile, forensic links were absent, and the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that in Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 3 SCC 760, simultaneous statements were accepted only because the disclosures were made one after another without break and were immediately followed by the recovery of incriminating material.
In the present case, however, the disclosures lacked clarity and independence. The Bench found the recovery evidence “sketchy and unreliable,” holding that:
“The fact that confessions were made by both the accused and the recovery was made from one of the accused, A4, leading the police to the spot would restrain us from treating the recovery as an inculpating circumstance against A3 or A4, especially when the confession is taken simultaneously from both the accused.”
The Court reiterated that:
- Confessions to police officers are inadmissible unless falling within Section 27.
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, which was absent in this case.
- Motive, recovery, and presence of the body in the accused’s house were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict
Given the weak evidentiary value of simultaneous disclosures, lack of corroboration, and incomplete circumstantial chain, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.
Key Takeaway
This judgment reinforces that:
- Simultaneous disclosures by multiple accused are not automatically inadmissible, but their evidentiary value is inherently doubtful.
- Courts must carefully examine whether such disclosures are genuine or a product of tutoring.
- Prosecution cannot rely solely on recovery-based evidence without strong corroboration.
Case Details
- Cause Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Date of Judgment: September 22, 2025
- Bench: Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice K Vinod Chandran
Appearance:
- For Appellants: Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv., Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR
- For Respondents: Mr. Nishanth Patil, AAG, Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR, Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv., Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv.
