Introduction
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and its interaction with Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been a point of contention, particularly regarding whether it violates the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27: Admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162(2): Prohibition of statements made to police officers from being used in evidence, except when they lead to the discovery of a fact.
- Indian Constitution – Article 14: Right to equality before the law.
In the landmark case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, the Supreme Court had to decide if these provisions created an unjustifiable distinction between accused persons in custody and those not in custody, and whether such distinctions are constitutionally valid.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Facts
Deoman Upadhyaya, the appellant, was involved in a dispute with his relative Sukhdei over the sale of agricultural land. On June 18, 1958, following an altercation between Deoman and Sukhdei, Deoman slapped Sukhdei and threatened her in front of witnesses. On June 19, 1958, Deoman murdered Sukhdei using a weapon called a "gandasa." After the crime, Deoman was seen fleeing the scene and was not found in the village. Later, in the presence of the investigating officer, Deoman led the officers to a tank where he had disposed of the weapon, which was found to be stained with human blood.
At trial, Deoman was convicted and sentenced to death, but the High Court acquitted him on the grounds of procedural errors, especially regarding the admissibility of his statement leading to the discovery of the murder weapon. The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Does Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by creating an unreasonable distinction between accused persons in custody and those not in custody?
- Is Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it relates to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, invalid?
Contentions of the Petitioner (State of U.P.)
The State argued that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the admissibility of statements made by an accused leading to the discovery of facts, is constitutional and does not violate Article 14. The petitioner contended that the classification between persons in custody and those not in custody is based on a legitimate distinction and does not lead to arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes. The law ensures the protection of the rights of the accused in custody, while simultaneously facilitating the discovery of important evidence in the investigation process. The State emphasized that the provision serves two objectives: protecting the accused from coerced confessions while allowing the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts.
Contentions of the Respondent (Deoman Upadhyaya)
Deoman Upadhyaya’s defense argued that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act creates an unjust and arbitrary distinction between accused persons in custody and those not in custody. It was contended that this distinction violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against accused persons who made confessional statements while not in custody, allowing their statements to be admissible, while denying such rights to those in custody. The respondent claimed that no justifiable reason existed for making such a distinction, and that both categories of accused persons should be treated equally.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on whether the classification created by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was reasonable and justifiable. The Court examined the legislative intent behind the section and noted that the provision's dual objectives are to facilitate the discovery of facts relevant to the crime while ensuring that the accused is not subjected to coercion or improper treatment.
The majority opinion held that the distinction made between accused persons in custody and those not in custody is valid and does not violate Article 14. The Court reasoned that the law provides safeguards for those in custody against coerced confessions, which is why confessions made by accused persons in custody are generally inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of a fact. In contrast, statements made by those not in custody do not face the same risks of coercion, justifying their admissibility.
The Court emphasized that this classification is based on an intelligible differentia (i.e., a rational basis) and serves a legitimate purpose, namely ensuring the protection of an accused’s rights while also making relevant evidence available for judicial consideration.
In dissent, Justice Subba Rao argued that the classification between the two categories was arbitrary, and that both categories of accused should be treated equally under the law, regardless of whether they are in custody.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in its majority judgment, held that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is intra vires and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that the distinction made between accused persons in custody and those not in custody is based on a legitimate, rational difference and serves the interests of justice by ensuring that confessions are not coerced while allowing the admissibility of statements that lead to the discovery of facts.
The Court's decision underscores the balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring that justice is served through the admissibility of crucial evidence.
