Introduction:

In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court redefined the notion of ‘custody’ under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, expanding its scope beyond formal arrest. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti’s bench, diverging from the prior judgment in Rajesh v. State of MP, clarified that ‘custody’ encompasses various forms of restraint, surveillance, or restriction by the police. The ruling emerged from a larger interpretation of prior judgments, notably referencing the Constitution Bench’s decision in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya and Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Arguments:

The bench disagreed with the Rajesh case’s interpretation, underscoring that Section 27 of the Evidence Act applies irrespective of formal arrest. They emphasized that when an accused or suspected person comes under police supervision, they lose their liberty and fall under ‘custody.’ This broader interpretation prevents police from delaying FIR filing or arrest to circumvent evidentiary provisions. The ruling highlighted the significance of commas between “person accused of an offence” and “in the custody of a police officer” in Section 27, necessitating distinct readings.

Court’s Judgment:

In the case of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for murder under IPC Section 302. The appellant’s disclosure led to the discovery of the deceased’s remains, a crucial incriminating factor. Despite the appellant’s denial during the trial, the Court inferred guilt due to the absence of an explanation. The judgment clarified the weight given to adverse inferences when the accused fails to provide an explanation.