Legal Analysis: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar vs. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 INSC 417
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Decision: April 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against High Court judgment affirming conviction under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants (original accused nos. 2 and 4) were convicted along with two other co-accused for the murder of a woman (the sister of accused no. 1). The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: motive, last seen together, and discovery of incriminating articles (plastic rope, petrol can, gold ornaments, car) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the only circumstances against them were (i) they were allegedly last seen with the deceased (as per PW‑7’s testimony), and (ii) a joint disclosure statement leading to discoveries. The Court found that the discovery evidence was not properly proved in accordance with Section 27 – the panch witness did not depose about the exact words uttered by each appellant, and the discoveries were essentially at the instance of accused no. 1, not the appellants. The circumstance of “last seen together”, without any corroboration, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Court applied the five-principle test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar vs. State of Karnataka (with connected appeal Mahadev Sidram Hullolli vs. State of Karnataka) Criminal Appeal Nos.1864 of 2024 and 2180 of 2026 Bench Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan Date of Decision April 27, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 417 Appeal From Judgment dated 22.12.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100096 and 100109 of 2018

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping for murder), 404 (dishonest misappropriation of property of deceased), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 34 (common intention).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 26 (confession to police officer not admissible), Section 27 (so much of information as leads to discovery of fact admissible), Section 101-103 (burden of proof).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 313 (statement of accused), Section 378 (appeal against acquittal – not applicable here).

Precedents Cited (extensively):

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Five golden principles for conviction on circumstantial evidence: circumstances must be fully es

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.