LexSTATE OF U.P. versus DEOMAN UPADHYAYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19~0 Jo.toy 6. 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961(1)] STATE OF U. P. v. DEOMAN UPADHYAYA (f;. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUDBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Criminal Law -Evidence-Statement made to police officer lead- ing to discot:e.,y--SlaJ.ute making stalcmcnt admissible u:lun made by perso11 in custody and inadmissible when made fry persan not in custody-Wlicthcr offends equality before t/ie law-" Persans in custody " - "Person accused of an offeiu:e "-Connotation of-Cir- cumstantial evidence-Indian Evidence Act, I872 (I of I872), s. 27 -Code of Criminal Procedure. I898 (Act 5 of I898), s. I62(2)- Co11stitution of India, Art. I4. The respondent was tried for the murder o! one Sukhdei early on the morning o! June 19. 1958. The evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and consisted o! the following facts: (i) on the 18th evening there was an altercation between the respondent and Sukhdei during which he slapped her and threatened that he would smash her lace; (ii) on the 18th ewn- ing the respondent borrowed a gandasa lrom one Mahesh; (iii) before day break on the 19th he was seen going towards and taking a bath in the village tank; (iv) the respondent absconded immediately thcrPafter; (v) he was arrested on the 20th and on 21st he offered to hand over the gandasa which he said he had thrown in the tank and thereafter he took the gandasaout o! the tank, and (vi) the gandasa was found to be stained with human hlood. The Sessions Judge accepted this evidence, found that the irresistible conclusion was that the respondent had commit- ted the murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal the lltgh Court held that s. 27 o! the Indian Evidence Act offended Art. 14 o! the Constitution and was void as it created an unjusti- fiable discrimination bet"'·ecn persons in custody whose state- ment leading to discovery was made admissible and persons not in custody whose statement was not made admissible even if it led to a discovery ; and consequently they held sub-s. (2) o! s. 162 o! the Code o! Criminal Procedure in so !ar as it related to s. 27 o! the Indian E\'ic!ence Act also to he void. As a result, the High Couit ruled out the statement o! the respondent that he had thrown the gm1dasa in the tank as inadmissible. They further held that the story tbat the appellant had borrowed the gandasa from Mahesh was unreliable. The rest o! the evidence in the view o! the High Court was not sufficient to prove the guilt o! the respondent and accordingly they acquitted him. Held, (per S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, Hidayatullah and Shah, JJ-, Subba Rao, J .. dissenting), thats. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 162 o! the Code of Criminal "- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 15 Procedure did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution and were I960 not void. Article 14 does not provide that all laws must be uniform and universally applicable; it merely forbids imwoper or invi- dious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from out of a larger group who are similarly circumstanced, and between whom and others not so favoured, no distinction reasonably justifying different treat- ment exists. Between persons in custody and persons not in custody the legislature has made a real distinction by enacting distinct rules regarding admissibility of statements confessional or otherwise made by them. In considering the constitutionality of a statute on the ground whether it has given equal treatment to all persons simi- larly circumstanced it has to be remembered that the legislature has to deal with practical prob.lems; the question is not to be judged by merely enumerating other theoretically possible situa- tions to which the statute might have been but has not applied. A doctrinaire approach is to be avoided. Persons not in custody making statements to the police leading to discovery of facts were a possible but rare class. A person who approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give informa- tion leading to· the discovery of an incriminating fact must be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police and to be in custody within the meaning of s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Att. A law which makes provision for cases where the need is most felt cannot be struck down becaus~ there are other instances to which it might have been applied. The object of the legislation being both to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.