The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, established that information obtained from a statement made by an accused individual is admissible as evidence during a trial, irrespective of the accused's formal custody status. The division bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, highlighted the need to interpret the requirement of police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in a pragmatic manner, avoiding a strictly formal or euphemistic interpretation.

Notably, Section 27 permits the admission of facts discovered from statements made by "a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer." The court clarified that the term 'custody' in this context extends beyond formal custody and includes any form of restriction, restraint, or surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested when providing information, the court asserted that, for practical purposes, the accused should be deemed to be in police custody.

This stance appeared to diverge from a recent three-judge bench decision in Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which insisted on formal police custody as a prerequisite for the admissibility of facts obtained from accused individuals' confessions. However, the two-judge bench in the present case referred to a Constitution Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya from 1961, supporting the notion that formal police custody is not essential.

The court upheld this perspective by arguing that a person providing information to the police, even verbally, which may be used against them, can be considered to have subjected themselves to police 'custody.' The decision in Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab was also cited to reinforce the idea that formal arrest is not mandatory for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court rendered these observations while affirming the conviction and life sentence of Perumal Raja, the appellant accused of murder. The case involved the appellant initially being arrested in connection with the suspected murder of his uncle, for which he was later acquitted. Subsequently, he disclosed to the police, after his arrest, that his missing cousin was also deceased and revealed the location of the cousin's remains. Despite the appellant not being formally arrested for his cousin's murder when making the disclosure, the court held that the evidence was admissible, considering the accused to be in practical police custody at the time.

The court justified its broad and pragmatic interpretation of "police custody" by highlighting the potential for abuse if a narrow or technical view were taken. It argued that such an approach could enable the police to manipulate the timing of filing FIRs and arrests, circumventing the provisions of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal challenging the appellant's conviction and sentence.

Case: Perumal Raja vs State Rep by Inspector of Police.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019).

Click to read/download judgment.