A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013, decided by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2025 (reported as [2025] 1 S.C.R. 948 : 2025 INSC 108), examines the sufficiency of a prosecution founded entirely on circumstantial evidence and recoveries said to have followed disclosure statements under Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution’s case alleged that the deceased, Shrishail, was murdered by three accused Manoj (A-1), Thammaraya (A-2) and Basappa (A-3) by strangulation, and that certain jewellery and other articles looted from the deceased were recovered pursuant to confessional disclosures.

The High Court affirmed convictions under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34 IPC. On careful reappraisal, the Supreme Court emphasized the settled principles governing circumstantial cases (derived from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra), and analysed the prosecution’s proof of disclosure and recovery. The Investigating Officer’s testimony lacked the exact words of the disclosures, the panchnama and recovery memoranda were not proved, and crucially no Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered objects was conducted. In light of these lacunae the Court held the chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Consequently, convictions of Thammaraya (A-2) and Basappa (A-3) were quashed and they were acquitted; the appeal of Manoj (A-1) abated on his death. The judgment reinforces stringent standards for proving recoveries and Section 27 disclosures in circumstantial cases and underlines the evidentiary importance of TIP and properly drawn panchnamas.

Keywords: Circumstantial evidence; Section 27 Indian Evidence Act; Test Identification Parade; recoveries; chain of evidence; disclosure statement; panchnama; Section 302 IPC; Section 201 IPC; Section 34 IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The prosecution alleged a planned murder motivated by an illicit relationship, wherein Manoj (A-1) purportedly enlisted Thammaraya (A-2) and Basappa (A-3) to eliminate Shrishail. The narrative recorded in the trial papers is that on 24 August 2001 the deceased was taken in a car and strangled with a nylon rope; his denuded body and clothes were abandoned at separate places. Initially, Manoj lodged a fabricated complaint claiming dacoity and abduction, but subsequently while in custody allegedly made confessions or disclosures that led to recovery of jewellery and other articles.

The Bijapur police investigation recorded recoveries claimed to be looted articles: a gold chain bearing an “S” (MO-8), a diary, a gold ring studded with white stones (MO-9), clothes (MO-4 & 5), a Jambia (MO-1) and the nylon rope (MO-6). The trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC; the High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the central contest was whether the circumstantial case, resting substantially on recovery-evidence and Section 27 disclosures, was framed with the requisite legal safeguards and whether the chain of evidence excluded every hypothesis of innocence.

The Court reviewed settled jurisprudence on circumstantial proof, the statutory and evidentiary mandates for proving discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and authorities emphasising the importance of Test Identification Parade (TIP) and properly executed panchnamas. The available record revealed significant lacunae in the investigating officer’s evidence: absence of the exact words of disclosures, nondocumentation/exhibition of disclosure statements and recovery memoranda, and omission to subject articles to TIP or independent identification by relatives of the deceased. These defects went to the core of facta probantia and rendered the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Manoj (A-1), nephew of Shrishail, allegedly had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife and, motivated thereby, planned the murder. On 24 August 2001 Manoj is said to have taken the deceased in his Indica car under the pretext of taking him to a doctor and instructed Thammaraya and Basappa to rendezvous en route. The prosecution version asserts the three strangulated Shrishail with a nylon rope, removed his clothes and abandoned his denuded body near the Tungabhadra dam forest. Immediately after the incident Manoj filed a fabricated complaint at Solapur Police at Bijapur Naka claiming dacoity and abduction; this purported disguise attracted police suspicion.

The dead body was discovered by G. Kandakumar P. Govindaswamy (PW-1) and the Bijapur police took over investigation. During investigation the police purportedly arrested Thammaraya and Basappa on 3 September 2001 and the Investigating Officer, Basanagouda (PW-27), deposed to having recorded voluntary disclosure statements which led to the recovery of the articles mentioned above in the presence of panch witnesses Ektarsab Hajisab @ Hayatsab Honnutagi (PW-8) and Srimant s/o Khandu Hakke. The prosecution produced 31 witnesses, 47 documents and 9 material objects. The medical evidence (PW-13) established cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation.

At trial the accused denied charges under Section 313 CrPC. The trial Court convicted and sentenced all three; appeals to the High Court were dismissed. The Supreme Court noted both the presence of incriminating circumstances and very significant failings in the evidentiary chain specifically the Investigating Officer’s failure to record exact words of disclosures, failure to exhibit the disclosure statements and recovery memoranda, and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) or get independent identification by relatives thereby undermining the claimed nexus between accused and recovered articles.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution, relying predominantly on recoveries said to have flowed from disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act, proved those disclosures and discoveries in accordance with law?

ii. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence satisfied the five conditions laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda so as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence?

iii. Whether omission to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and failure to exhibit panchnama / recovery memoranda fatally vitiated the prosecution’s case based on recoveries?

iv. Whether convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC could be sustained where proof of recoveries and the disclosure process was inadequate?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants contended that the prosecution’s case was inherently flawed because the alleged confessions or disclosure statements were not proved in the manner mandated by law. It was urged that the Investigating Officer did not state the exact words spoken by the accused leading to the discoveries, recovery memoranda and the first part of the panchnama were not exhibited, and there was no independent corroboration of the recovered articles being those owned by the deceased. The appellants emphasized the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to let identifying witnesses mark and recognize the recovered objects, and argued that the only incriminating circumstances were the recoveries which were not properly linked to the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the chain of circumstances therefore was neither complete nor conclusive and that reasonable doubt persisted.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent maintained that the recoveries, the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the narrative of events collectively formed a coherent chain of circumstances. It was contended that the panchnama process had been carried out in the presence of panch witnesses and that the recovered objects were produced in Court as material objects. The prosecution relied upon the confessional trend by Manoj and the subsequent disclosure statements of the co-accused as sufficient to link them to the crime, asserting that corroborative details and recovery of the nylon rope and weapon anchored the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court began by restating the canonical principles for circumstantial cases from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, emphasizing that every link must be established and the only permissible hypothesis remaining must be guilt. The Court accepted that death was homicidal by strangulation (medical evidence) and that motive and last-seen facts were available against Manoj (A-1). However, for Thammaraya (A-2) and Basappa (A-3) the only incrimination was the claimed recoveries.

On close scrutiny the Investigating Officer’s deposition failed to state the exact words used by the accused in their disclosure statements a prerequisite for satisfying Section 27 Evidence Act as clarified in authorities such as Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Subramanya v. State of Karnataka. The IO did not exhibit the disclosure statements he purportedly wrote, did not exhibit recovery memoranda, and did not show that the accused led the police to the precise places where the articles were found. No sealing or subsequent test identification of the items by relatives of Shrishail was shown. Critically, the IO omitted conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the recovered articles a procedural safeguard specially pertinent where the prosecution theory is founded solely on recoveries. The Court recalled Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and Munna Kumar Upadhyay on the object and confirmatory value of TIPs, noting that while delay in TIP is not per se fatal, non-conduct of TIP altogether, where identification is central, demonstrated negligence.

Applying the five golden principles the Court found failure on multiple counts: the circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt were not fully established; they were explainable on the hypothesis of innocence (for instance, absence of linkage between accused and objects); the circumstances lacked conclusive tendency and did not exclude other hypotheses; and the chain of evidence was incomplete. Consequently, the material facts (facta probantia) did not sustain the alleged factum probando. The Court therefore held that convictions of Thammaraya and Basappa were unsustainable, quashed the impugned judgments and acquitted them. The appeal of Manoj abated upon his death.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that where a criminal prosecution rests substantially on recoveries said to be made pursuant to disclosures by accused persons, the prosecution must strictly prove the disclosure under Section 27, Evidence Act through the investigating officer’s precise narration of the accused’s words, the preparation and exhibition of the first part of panchnama at the station, subsequent conduct of the recovery in presence of independent panchas, appropriate sealing and identification and, where appropriate, a Test Identification Parade. Absent these mandatory elements the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete and cannot exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. The ratio thus enforces strict adherence to procedures which supply the necessary corroboration to a disclosure-based recovery.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court reiterated that TIPs and recovery panchnamas are corroborative and confirmatory tools; delay in TIP need not be fatal but total omission, when identification is the keystone, points to dereliction. The opinion also underscored prosecutorial responsibility: mere production of objects in Court without proving the genesis of their discovery and their linkage to accused is insufficient. The judgment reflects a cautionary stance against shortcutting evidentiary formalities in fast-track or high-pressure investigations.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Where Section 27 recoveries are central, the IO must record the exact words of the accused in the first part of panchnama at the police station in presence of independent panchas and exhibit it in evidence.

ii. The IO must lead evidence to show the accused led him to the place of recovery and that the recoveries were made contemporaneously before panchas; recovery memoranda must be prepared, signed and exhibited.

iii. Recovered articles that are pivotal to prosecution should, wherever practicable, be subjected to Test Identification Parade (TIP) so that witnesses can mark or identify the objects and such TIP proceedings should be documented and proved in Court.

iv. Articles produced in Court should be shown to have been sealed, preserved and linked chain-wise from recovery to production in Court; absence of such chain weakens prosecutorial case.

v. Courts should insist on strict adherence to these steps in circumstantial cases to prevent convictions resting on doubtful recoveries.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The present decision reaffirms the high evidentiary threshold in circumstantial prosecutions and preserves procedural safeguards around Section 27 recoveries. By quashing convictions where the Investigating Officer omitted to record exact disclosures, exhibit panchnamas and conduct TIP, the Court strengthened the rule that recoveries without proper proof amount to a deficient chain of evidence. The judgment serves as a corrective: it cautions investigating agencies and prosecutors against reliance on informal or inadequately documented discoveries and emphasizes that procedural lapses cannot be glossed over by the gravity of the suspected crime.

For practitioners and investigators the ruling is a reminder that sound criminal justice depends on both substantive proof and rigorous observance of process. The Court’s approach protects the foundational criminal law principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not inferred from suggestions or incomplete documentary proof. The acquittal here is not a repudiation of effective investigation but a calibrated insistence that convictions must rest on legally admissible and demonstrably reliable proof.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Thammaraya & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, Crim. App. No. 649 of 2013, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 948 : 2025 INSC 108.

ii. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88.

iii. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 : [2024] 5 SCR 174.

iv. Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1954) 2 SCC 516 : [1955] 1 SCR 903.

v. Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 : [2012] 6 SCR 611.

vi. Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 201, 34).

ii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 27).

iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (provisions relevant to recording of statements, panchnama and trial).