PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL versus STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 03-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 : 2024 INSC 13
Case Details
Perumal Raja @ Perumal
v.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019)
03 January 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna* and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if 
can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility 
of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and 
sentence of the appellant u/ss.302 and 201, Penal Code, 1860, 
if justified.
Headnotes
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – “in the custody of a police officer” 
– Interpretation – Case based on circumstantial evidence 
– Appellant was taken into custody during the course of 
investigation for the murder of his Uncle – However, he made a 
disclosure statement – Appellant along with other co-accused 
had murdered his uncle’s son-deceased (appellant’s cousin) 
who was missing for months and his body was first dumped 
in the sump tank and later retrieved, cut into two parts, 
put in sack bags, and thrown in the river/canal – Appellant 
subsequently arrested in the present case – On the basis of 
the disclosure statement, parts of the dead body and sack 
bags were recovered – Other articles were also recovered – 
Appellant’s conviction and sentence u/ss.302 and 201, Penal 
Code, 1860, challenged: 
Held: The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of 
s.27, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or 
euphemistically – “custody” u/s.27 does not mean formal custody 
– It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance 
by the police– Even if the accused was not formally arrested at 
the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, 
for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police – Words 
“person accused of an offence” and “in the custody of a police 
88
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
officer” in s.27 are separated by a comma and thus, have to be 
read distinctively – The wide and pragmatic interpretation of the 
term “police custody” is supported by the fact that if a narrow 
or technical view is taken, it will be very easy for the police to 
delay the time of filing the FIR and arrest, and thereby evade the 
contours of ss.25 to 27 – A person giving word of mouth information 
to police, which may be used as evidence against him, may be 
deemed to have submitted himself to the “custody” of the police 
officer – In the present case, the disclosure statement was made 
by the appellant when he was detained in another case relating 
to the murder of his Uncle– He was subsequently arrested in the 
present case – Body parts of the deceased were recovered on the 
pointing out of appellant in his disclosure statement – Deceased had 
been missing for months and was untraceable – His whereabouts 
were unknown– The perpetrator(s) were also unknown – It is only 
consequent to the disclosure statement by the appellant that the 
police came to know that the Deceased had been murdered – The 
homicidal death of Deceased, the disclosure statement and the 
consequent recoveries of the motorcycle and other belongings at 
the behest of the appellant proved beyond doubt – These facts, 
in the absence of any other material to doubt them, establish that 
the appellant committed murder of Deceased – The presence 
of motive, inter se family property disputes, reinforces the said 
conclusion – Conviction of the appellant upheld. [Paras 25, 28, 
29, 31, 41]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27 – s.27, an exception to ss.25, 
26 – Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events:
Held: s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 – s.27 makes that part 
of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in 
consequence of the information received from a person accused 
of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby 
discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused – The fact 
which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is 
admissible in evidence – Further, the fact discovered must lead 
to recovery of a physical object and only that information which 
distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved – s.27 is based 
on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events- a fact is 
actually discovered in consequence of the information given, which 
results in recovery of a physical object – The facts discovered and 
the recovery is an assurance that the information given by a person 
[2024] 1 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.