Section 27 evidence rule upheld as a rational custody-based classification; discovery-linked circumstantial evidence sustained the murder conviction.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was treated as a valid evidentiary classification because it distinguishes persons in custody from those not in custody on a real and rational basis connected with discovery of facts, and the limited portion of information leading distinctly to discovery remained admissible. On the facts, the circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of the blood-stained gandasa, the quarrel, threat, conduct and absconding, was held to form a complete chain consistent only with guilt, supporting a conviction for murder and restoration of the death sentence. The dissent considered section 27 unconstitutional under article 14, but the majority upheld the provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in so far as it preserved section 27, were void for violating article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of the gandasa, established the respondent's guilt for murder and justified restoration of the conviction and death sentence.

Issue (i): Whether section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in so far as it preserved section 27, were void for violating article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The majority held that section 27 created a permissible distinction between persons in custody and persons not in custody. The classification was treated as based on a real difference having a rational relation to the object of the evidentiary rule, namely, to admit only that part of information which is confirmed by discovery of a fact while protecting against tainted confessional evidence. The provision was read with sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act and section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the majority concluded that the legislative distinction was not arbitrary or hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: The provision was held valid and not violative of article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of the gandasa, established the respondent's guilt for murder and justified restoration of the conviction and death sentence.

Analysis: The majority relied on the proved quarrel, the threat, the accused's conduct around the time of the , his absconding, and the discovery of the blood-stained gandasa pursuant to information attributable to him. The majority treated the portion of the information distinctly relating to the discovered fact as admissible and held that the circumstances formed a complete chain consistent only with guilt. It further held that the offence was murder and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was warranted.

Conclusion: The respondent's guilt was affirmed and the conviction and death sentence were restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the constitutional challenge failed, and the acquittal was reversed with restoration of the trial court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory evidentiary classification between persons in custody and persons not in custody is valid if it rests on a real and rational distinction connected with the object of the law, and information leading distinctly to discovery of a fact remains admissible to that limited extent.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. held that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was void as offending article 14 because it drew an arbitrary distinction between accused persons in custody and those not in custody. On that view, the appeal should still have failed on the facts, and the acquittal was not to be disturbed.

---