Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that as soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is, therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act.

"It is for this reason that the expression “custody” has been held, to include surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police," a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said.

The top court explained the legal position while upholding conviction of Perumal Raja alias Perumal and sentence of life term awarded to him in the 2008 murder case related to Rajni alias Rajnikanth. The father of the deceased Rajaram was also found murdered on April 21, 2008, a day after he lodged a complaint with regard to missing of his son on return from France.

The appellant was arrested in the murder case of Rajaram in which he made a disclosure statement about killing of Rajni and led to discovery of body.

In the present case, the disclosure statement was made by the appellant Perumal Raja alias Perumal on April 25, 2008, when he was detained in another case, namely, FIR No. 204/2008, registered at PS Grand Bazar, Puducherry, relating to the murder of Rajaram. He was subsequently arrested in this case, that is FIR No 80/2008, which was registered at PS Odiansalai, Puducherry, related to murder of Rajni. 

The bench pointed out Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allowed for a fact to be detected and can be used during custody, is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. 

"However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence," the bench said.

"The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or euphemistically," the bench added.

The expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police, the bench reiterated.

The words “person accused of an offence” and the words “in the custody of a police officer” in Section 27 of the Evidence Act are separated by a comma. Thus, they 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 Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act, the bench pointed out. 

"However, evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before the court in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a straightjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence," the bench said.

The bench pointed out in the facts of the present case, the body parts of the deceased Rajini alias Rajinikanth were recovered on the pointing out of appellant – Perumal Raja alias Perumal in his disclosure statement. Rajini alias Rajinikanth had been missing for months and was untraceable. 

"In the present case, the homicidal death of Rajini alias Rajinikanth, the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery have been proved beyond doubt and debate," the bench said.

The court said acquittal of co-accused would also not come to any help to the appellant.

"Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not have been applied to the other co-accused for the simple reason that the provision pertains to information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a 'fact' that was previously unknown, as opposed to fact already disclosed or known. Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case," the bench said.

The court said this was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. 

"Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused. The trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty," the bench said.

Cause Title: Perumal Raja alias Perumal vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police (2024 INSC 13)