1960 (5) TMI 27 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction & Death Sentence for Murder Based on Strong Evidence

STATE OF UP Versus DEOMAN UPADHYAYA

STATE OF UP Versus DEOMAN UPADHYAYA - 1960 AIR 1125 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. Constitutionality of Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it relates to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Admissibility of statements made by persons in custody leading to the discovery of facts.4. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence against the accused.5. Appropriateness of the death sentence.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:The primary issue was whether Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The High Court had ruled that Section 27 was unconstitutional because it discriminated between persons in custody and those not in custody, thus violating Article 14.The Supreme Court, however, found that the distinction made by Section 27 between persons in custody and those not in custody was reasonable and based on practical considerations. The Court noted that persons in custody are more likely to be subjected to coercive methods, and thus, their statements leading to the discovery of facts are given limited admissibility to ensure justice. The Court concluded that this distinction does not violate Article 14.2. Constitutionality of Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The High Court had also ruled that Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it relates to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Section 162(2) is intra vires and does not offend Article 14. The Court reasoned that the provision serves the purpose of ensuring that only reliable evidence, corroborated by the discovery of facts, is admissible.3. Admissibility of Statements Leading to Discovery of Facts:The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the admissibility of statements made by persons in custody if those statements lead to the discovery of a fact. The Court noted that this provision is based on the principle that the discovery of a fact pursuant to a statement ensures the truth of that statement. Therefore, such statements are admissible to the extent that they distinctly relate to the discovered fact.4. Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence:The trial court had convicted the accused based on several circumstantial evidences, including an altercation between the accused and the deceased, the accused borrowing a gandasa, his presence near the tank, his absconding, and his subsequent recovery of the gandasa stained with human blood. The High Court had acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient.The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the evidence and found that the circumstantial evidence formed a strong chain leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the murder. The Court reinstated the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the recovery of the gandasa stained with human blood, based on the accused's statement, was a significant piece of evidence.5. Appropriateness of the Death Sentence:The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, noting that the murder was brutal and premeditated. The Court observed that the accused had killed a defenseless old woman, who was the benefactress of his wife, in a calculated manner. Given the nature of the crime, the Court found that the death sentence was appropriate and restored the trial court's order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are constitutional and do not violate Article 14. The Court set aside the High Court's order of acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction and death sentence for the accused.