Summary of Recent judgment

Case: State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya



Date of Order / Judgment: 19th Septemer, 2024

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice S.K. Das, Justice J. L. Kapur, Justice J. C. Shah, Justice J. K. Subba Rao, Justice M. Hidayatullah

Background

An altercation occurred between Deoman Upadhyaya and Sukhdei over the transfer of lands in Anandadih. During the confrontation, Deoman slapped Sukhdei and threatened her. The following day, she was found murdered. After some days Deoman was arrested. Deoman, in the presence of the investigating officer and two witnesses, offered to hand over the gandasa which he said he had thrown into a tank, and thereafter he led the officer and the witnesses to the tank and in their presence waded into the tank and fetched the gandasa) out of the water. This gandasa was found by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist to be stained with human blood. The Sessions Court convicted him of murder, leading to an appeal to the Allahabad High Court, which acquitted him. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues
  • 1. Is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act void as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating between accused persons in custody and those not in custody?
  • 2. Is subsection (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure void in relation to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Observation

The Supreme Court evaluated the principles underlying Section 27, which allows statements made by an accused in police custody to be admissible if they lead to the discovery of evidence. The Court determined that while there is a distinction between accused persons in custody and those not, this does not constitute hostile discrimination under Article 14. The Court emphasized that the provision aims to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, ensuring that confessions if not made voluntarily remain inadmissible, while allowing for evidence to be considered if the statements is made in custody and is voluntary.

Decision

In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal was allowed. The Court found that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and subsection (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as they relate to Section 27, are intra vires and do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court acquitting the respondent is set aside, and the order of the Sessions Court convicting Deoman is restored.