Supreme Court Reinstates Trial Court Acquittal, Holds High Court Erred in Relying on Police Narratives and Section 27 Disclosures

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard appeals against the Karnataka High Court’s decision that had reversed a trial court acquittal and convicted six accused for the brutal murder of a man in front of his son. The appeals challenged the High Court’s reliance on investigating officers’ testimony, alleged confessions and recoveries, and the use of Section 161 statements and Section 27 disclosures to sustain convictions under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order of acquittal, observing that the High Court had “egregiously erred” by treating investigatory narration and Section 161 statements, as recounted by police witnesses, as substantive evidence. The Court emphasised that voluntary statements and confessions recorded during investigation could not supplant the absence of independent proof linking recovered objects to the crime. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved... In their Lordships' view it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.” The Court further noted that “the presumption of innocence of the accused until proved guilty, a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, stands further strengthened by the order of acquittal.”

Background The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to murder the deceased due to disputes arising from division of family assets and institutional control. The deceased was allegedly hacked to death on 28.04.2011 in front of his son (PW8), who lodged the first information report. The investigation led to multiple arrests and a voluminous trial with 87 witnesses; 71 of them, including key eyewitnesses and panch witnesses, turned hostile. The trial court acquitted all accused for lack of reliable evidence. The Karnataka High Court reversed that acquittal, convicted A1–A6 for murder and conspiracy, relying heavily on investigating officers’ testimony, alleged voluntary statements by accused, recoveries (weapons, blood-stained clothes, cash, vehicles) and Section 161 statements as narrated by police.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the High Court’s approach. The State defended the conviction, relying on recoveries, forensic material and the investigating officers’ accounts. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and precedent, including Pulukuri Kottaya and subsequent authoritative rulings on Sections 27 and 30 of the Evidence Act and Sections 161–162 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the High Court had improperly treated investigatory narration and Section 161 statements (which are inadmissible as substantive evidence) as proof, and had relied on Section 27 disclosures and confessions in absence of independent linkage of recovered items to the crime or to the accused who were alleged to have committed the murder. The Court emphasised that a Section 27 disclosure must relate distinctly to the fact discovered, and that confessional material which implicated others could not be used to sustain conviction without corroborative evidence. Finding no legal evidence connecting the accused to the homicidal act, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals, acquitted the accused and directed their immediate release if in custody; if earlier released on bail, the bail bonds were ordered cancelled. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 657 Case Title: Renuka Prasad v. The State represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189-3190 of 2023 etc.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel; Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Panwar, Additional Advocate General