Supreme Court rules that simultaneous disclosure statements under Section 27 Evidence Act need strict scrutiny.
Case in NewsThe Supreme Court in Simultaneous Disclosure Statements Need Higher Scrutiny Under Evidence Act stressed stricter scrutiny for joint confessions under Section 27 . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka
On September 22, a bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered a crucial judgment interpreting Section 27 Evidence Act . The case involved the conviction of three individuals in the murder of a Karnataka police constable. The prosecution’s case relied on recovery of a murder weapon following simultaneous disclosure statements by two accused . However, the Court found the evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The Court examined both factual inconsistencies and evidentiary lapses in the case . The key issues were :
- Conviction was based on alleged simultaneous disclosure by A3 and A4 regarding the weapon .
- Investigating Officer failed to clarify if disclosures were sequential or simultaneous.
- Independent witnesses turned hostile and forensic links were missing .
- Motive, recovery, and chain of circumstances remained incomplete, raising reasonable doubt .
Legal Insights
The Court analyzed the evidentiary admissibility under Section 27 Evidence Act :
- Simultaneous disclosure is not per se inadmissible but requires strict judicial scrutiny .
- Relied on Kishore Bhadke vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 SCC 760 .
- Confessions to police are inadmissible under Indian Evidence Act .
- Burden lies on prosecution to prove disclosure was genuine, independent and corroborated .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding recovery evidence from joint disclosure as “sketchy” and unreliable . It emphasized that simultaneous disclosure statements require higher scrutiny to rule out tutoring or coercion . The Court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, thus acquitting the accused .
Source-Supreme Court of India
Read also – Section 27 Evidence Act
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
