Judgement Briefs

Evidence Law

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya

AIR 1960 SC 1125

Citation
AIR 1960 SC 1125
Court
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Date
6 May 1960
Bench
S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah and J.C. Shah JJ.

Facts

  • Deoman Upadhyaya was prosecuted for the murder of Sukhdei.
  • The prosecution relied entirely upon circumstantial evidence.
  • Shortly before the death:
  • Deoman had quarrelled with Sukhdei;
  • he slapped her;
  • he threatened to smash her face.
  • That evening, he borrowed a gandasa, a sharp agricultural weapon, from one Mahesh.
  • Early the next morning, he was seen:
  • going towards a village tank;
  • bathing in the tank.
  • He then absconded.
  • After his arrest, Deoman told the police that:
  • he had thrown the gandasa into the tank;
  • he could produce it.
  • He took the police to the tank and recovered the weapon.
  • The gandasa was found stained with human blood.
  • The Sessions Court convicted him of murder.
  • The High Court held Section 27 of the Evidence Act unconstitutional under Article 14.
  • It reasoned that the section treated:
  • persons in police custody whose discovery statements were admissible;
  • persons outside custody whose similar statements were inadmissible, differently without sufficient justification.
  • After excluding the discovery statement, the High Court acquitted Deoman.
  • The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

  • Whether Section 27 violated Article 14 by applying only to information received from an accused in police custody.
  • What is meant by “custody” for Section 27.
  • Whether the information concerning the gandasa and its recovery was admissible.

Rule

  • Sections 25 and 26 broadly exclude:
  • confessions made to police officers;
  • confessions made while in police custody.
  • Section 27 creates a limited exception.
  • When:
  • information is received from an accused;
  • the accused is in police custody;
  • a fact is discovered in consequence, only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered may be proved.
  • Under the BSA, this rule appears in the proviso to Section 23(2).
  • The justification for admissibility is the confirmation supplied by the actual discovery.
  • “Custody” does not necessarily require:
  • formal arrest;
  • handcuffs;
  • confinement inside a police station.
  • It may include a situation where the accused has submitted to police control or is under effective restraint or surveillance.
  • Section 27 is not unconstitutional merely because it is limited to persons in custody.

Application

  • The Court held that persons in police custody form a legally recognisable category for confession rules.
  • Sections 25 and 26 impose special restrictions on police and custodial confessions because of the risk of:
  • coercion;
  • pressure;
  • fabricated confession evidence.
  • Section 27 partially removes that restriction only where the accused’s information is objectively confirmed by discovery.
  • A person outside custody is not affected by the same custodial prohibition.
  • Therefore, the distinction did not produce unconstitutional discrimination.
  • The Court explained that Section 27 was not based merely upon the speaker’s status.
  • It was connected with:
  • the special exclusion in Sections 25 and 26;
  • the reliability created when hidden facts are actually discovered.
  • Deoman’s statement contained more than one idea.
  • The admissible part was not necessarily the whole sentence.
  • What could be proved was substantially:
  • that the gandasa had been thrown in the tank;
  • that he knew where it was;
  • that he could produce it.
  • Any broader admission directly confessing murder would remain excluded.
  • The discovery established:
  • the existence of the weapon;
  • its concealed location;
  • Deoman’s knowledge of that location.
  • Its human-blood stains connected the discovery with the homicide.
  • This circumstance had to be considered with:
  • the prior quarrel and threat;
  • borrowing of the weapon;
  • bathing at the tank;
  • absconding;
  • recovery from the tank.
  • Together, these circumstances created a complete chain inconsistent with innocence.
  • Subba Rao J. dissented on aspects of the constitutional reasoning, but the majority upheld Section 27.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that Section 27 did not violate Article 14.
  • The distinction relating to persons in custody was connected with the special rules excluding police and custodial confessions.
  • The portion of Deoman’s information distinctly related to recovery of the gandasa was admissible.
  • The recovery, human-blood stains and surrounding circumstances proved his guilt.
  • The High Court’s acquittal was reversed and the conviction restored.