In the case of Perumal Raja vs State Rep by Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court of India ruled that facts sourced from a statement made by an accused are admissible as evidence during trial, even if the accused is not in “formal” police custody. The Court emphasized that the term ‘custody’ under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be interpreted pragmatically, encompassing any form of restriction, restraint, or surveillance by the police.
The division bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, rejected a formalistic or euphemistic interpretation of police custody. It clarified that even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of providing information, they should be deemed, for all practical purposes, to be in the custody of the police.
This ruling appeared to differ from a recent three-judge bench decision in Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that formal police custody is a prerequisite for making facts obtained from confessions by an accused admissible. The division bench in Perumal Raja’s case referred to a Constitution Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1961), supporting the view that “formal” police custody is not necessary.
The Court justified its interpretation by stating that a person providing information to the police, even orally, may be deemed to have submitted themselves to the ‘custody’ of the police officer. It also cited the decision in Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, which applied Deoman Upadhyaya to assert that formal arrest is not a necessity for the operation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The case involved Perumal Raja, initially arrested in connection with the suspected murder of his uncle (a case in which he was later acquitted). Subsequently, the appellant revealed to the police, after his arrest, that the deceased man’s son (appellant’s cousin) was also dead and disclosed the location of the remains. The Court held that this evidence was admissible, considering the accused to be, from a practical standpoint, under police custody when making the disclosure statement.
The Supreme Court’s wide and pragmatic interpretation of “police custody” aims to prevent the police from delaying the filing of FIR and arrest to avoid the provisions of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court asserted that as soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, they are no longer at liberty and are under a check, thus constituting ‘custody’ within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of Perumal Raja, upholding the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police investigation.
