STATE OF U.P V.

DEOMAN UPADHAYAYA
SUBMITTED BY AJIT KUMAR SHARMA

(ROLL NO. 1303), B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.)

SUBMITTED TO Dr. P.V.K.S RAMA RAO, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

EVIDENCE LAW FOR THE COMPLETION OF B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.) COURSE

SESSION 2015-2020

APRIL, 2017

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR
PATNA

1|Page
Contents
DECLARATION PAGE................................................................................................................................ 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGE ................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 5
OBJECT OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................ 7
HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................................................ 7
RESEARCH METHEDOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 7
SOURCES OF DATA .................................................................................................................................. 7
LIMITATION OF RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 7
SCOPE OF STUDY ..................................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 27: MEANING AND ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 8
FACT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................................................ 10
OTHER RELEVANT CASE .................................................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................................................................................................... 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 15
BOOKS ........................................................................................................................................... 15
WEBSITES ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2|Page
 DECLARATION PAGE

I Ajit Kumar Sharma student of B.A.L.L.B. (Second year) in Chanakya National Law
University declare that the research project entitled state of u.p v. deoman upadhayaya
submitted by me for the fulfilment of EVIDENCE LAW course is my own work. This
project has not been submitted for any other Degree / Certificate / Course in any Institution /
University.

Name of the candidate

AJIT KUMAR SHARMA

B.A.L.L.B (2nd Year) Signature of Candidate

ROLL NO. 1303

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGE

I am highly elated to have worked on my research topic state of u.p v. deoman

upadhayaya under the guidelines of DR. P.K.V. SITA RAMA RAO, (FACULTY OF
EVIDENCE LAW). I am very grateful to him for his proper guidance.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to him
for his exemplary guidance, valuable feedback and constant encouragement throughout the
duration of the project.

His valuable suggestions were of immense help throughout my project work.

His perceptive criticism kept me working to make this project in a much better way. Working
under him was an extremely knowledgeable experience for me.

I would also like to thank all my friends and my seniors. Apart from all these I would like to
give special regard to the librarian of my university who made a relevant effort regarding to
provide the materials to my topic and also assisting me.

Finally I would like to thank my parents and brother for their immense support and presence
during this whole project work.

Ajit Kumar Sharma

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 271 of Indian evidence act talks about that How much of information received
from accused may be proved.Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of
a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

This section is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. But clearly the extent of the
information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such
information is required to relate.

Section 27 lays down that during the period of investigation or during police custody any
information is given by the accused of an offence to the police officer that leads to discover
any fact, may be proved whether such information amounts to confession or not, and obtained
under inducement, threat or promise. Section 27 is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26
and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to
the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.2

In State of U.P. v Deoman the validity of Section 27 of the Evidence Act was challenged on
the ground that it was offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In appeal the High
Court declared Section 27 to be unconstitutional as it created unjustifiable discrimination
between persons in custody and persons out of custody. Further appeal was made by the
State of U.P. against the judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court. It was held by the
Supreme Court that the distinction between persons in custody and persons out of
custody had little practical significance. By majority decision the Section 27 was declared to
be constitutional and the conviction awarded by the Session judge was restored.

Basic object of the section is to provide evidence for admission and such evidence relates to
some sort of discovery of fact. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to
render evidence holding to discovery of on fact admissible, the information must come from
any accused in custody of the police. It is well settled that recovery of object is not discovery
of fact envisaged in the section. Recovery so made prusuant to discovery statement can be
relied upon to complete chain of events relating to crime.

Discovery of facts, however important, does not render admissible that the accused informed
in connection with discovery. So much of the information which distinctly relate to the facts
thereby discovered is admissible. The section seems to be leased on the view that if a fact is
actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded.
Thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in
1
Section 27 of Indian evidence act, 1872
2 st
Advocate Lal Batuk The law of Evidence (Central law Agency, Allahabad, 21 Edition),page 239

5|Page
evidence. However, since discovery of fact as a result of information from the accused is not
admissible under its relevancy is established by other evidence showing the connection
between the fact discovered and the offence charged with the accused. Articles discovered
by another house owner on the information provided by the accused were held to be
discovered at the instance of the accused.

Therefore, the extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability.

What was admissible in evidence is only that part which would come within the purview of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and not the rest. Mere statement that the accused led the
police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of
the information given.

6|Page
OBJECT OF THE STUDY
i. To study the meaning of confession under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
ii. To study the constitutional validity of section 27.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher comes with a hypothesis that confession given by the accused under the
custody of police officer is not admissible in the court of law.

RESEARCH METHEDOLOGY
The researcher had adopted doctrinal method of researcher.

SOURCES OF DATA
The researcher had adopted the both primary and secondary source.

LIMITATION OF RESEARCH
The researcher had the time limitation maximum of 30 days to complete his project.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The researcher will be a source for a further research. This research will give him the basic
idea in further research.

7|Page
 CHAPTER II

SECTION 27: MEANING AND ANALYSIS

A part of a confession hit by Sections 253 and 264 of Evidence Act may still be proved
against the accused if it distinctly leads to discovery of any fact during the course of
investigation by virtue of section 27. The provision is couched in the form of a proviso, an
exception, though it is not clear from its terms as to which provisions it qualifies. Fortunately,
the controversy has been set at rest by judicial pronouncements and it is accepted that the
section qualifies only Section 25 and 26 and not section 24, as shall be seen later in this
chapter. First, we examine the nature of and reasons for creating this all important exception
to the rule of total exclusion of custodial confessions. Section 27 enacts the English doctrine
of confirmation by subsequent facts. The two broad reasons based on which the total
exclusion rule in Section 25 and 26 has been justified are:

a. Confession made to police or in the presence of the police may be false and could have
been made by the accused as the only way to escape police torture.

b. Even if true, admitting such confession in evidence will encourage the illegal and inhuman
atrocities committed by the police.

If a part of a statement made by the accused when he is in police custody directly and
distinctly leads to discovery of a fact relevant to the investigation, the veracity of the said part
gets confirmed. This makes at least reason cited at (a) above not applicable so far as that
particular part of the statement is concerned. As regards reason (b), its absence is ensured by
the Supreme Court in the Landmark judgement delivered by a bench of eleven. judges hold
that the provision of section 27 is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the
information has not been obtained by compulsion.5

Thus, a statement of an accused or part thereof as made admissible in evidence by section 27

assumes a great significance both because it provides for a well justified relaxation to the
total exclusion rule in case of confirmation of the statement be subsequent facts and also may,
more so, because this is one provision which is susceptible to the most blatant misuse by the
police. Discoveries can be planted on the accused. They can also be made by way of an
3
Section 25 of Indian evidnce act, 1872
4
Id section 26
5
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 S.C. 1808

8|Page
illegal search and shall be admissible in evidence ever if illegality is proved, because of the
absence in the Indian Constitution, of a right akin to the IV amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.2 It has been specifically held by the Indian Supreme Court that an evidence
obtained by illegal search and seizure is nevertheless admissible.6

Conditions necessary for application of Section 277 The conditions necessary for application
of this provision are:

(i) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue;

(ii) The fact must have been discovered in consequence of some information received from
the accused whether the said information amounts to a confession or not;

(iii) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence;

(iv) He must be in custody of a police officer;

(v) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in

custody must be deposed;

(vi) That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be
proved.

6
Vijay Singh v. State of M.P., 2005 Cr. L.J. 299 (M. P. High Court).
7
Supra note 1

9|Page
 CHAPTER III

FACT OF THE CASE

In state of state of u.p v. deoman upadhayaya8 Deoman, the accused, was married to one
Dulari. Dularis parents had died in her infancy and she was brought up by her cousin,
Sukhdei. Skhdei gifted a part of her own inherited lands to Dulari, and the whole of the land
was being cultivated by Deomans uncle, Mahabir, Deoman and Mahabir were negotiating
sale of some of the lands, but Sukhdei protested. Deoman slapped her and threatened to
smash her face. Early in the next morning Sukhdei was lying dead on her bed with a number
of wounds and a pool of blood below the cot. Deoman was missing. When he was
apprehended some two days later he told the police that he attacked Sukhdei with a gandasa
which he had earlier borrowed from another and killed her on the spot and thereafter threw
the gandasa into the village tank, washed himself and absconded. 9 In the presence of the
investigating officer and certain witnesses, he waded into the tank and took out the gandasa.
A serologist examined it and testified that it was stained with human blood. Thus its
connection with the murder was clearly established.

The statement of the accused to the police and consequential discovery of the gandasa when
seen in the background of his anger with Sukhdei, the borrowing of gandasa, some persons
having seen him running towards the tank, taking bath in it and his disappearance, left no
doubt that he was guilty and the Sessions Judge accordingly convicted him.10

He appealed to the High Court, among others on the ground that S. 27 was violative of the
Constitution of India. The High Court declared S. 27 to be unconstitutional. The High Court
excluded statement of the accused and without it there being not much evidence, acquitted
the accused.. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, where by a majority, the section was
declared to be constitutional and the conviction of Deoman was restored. The Supreme Court
held that, that part of the statement of the accused by which he said that he had killed Sukhdei
was not relevant. This should be excluded, but the rest was relevant and even then there was
sufficient proof of his guilt. The discussion in the Supreme Court centered round the

8
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyay, AIR 1960 S.C. 1125.
9
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/387768/ last visited on 20/04/2017
10
http://shortnotesonlaw.blogspot.in/2010/11/state-of-up-vs-deoman-upadhyaya-1960.html last visited on
19/04/2017

10 | P a g e
constitutional validity of section 27, Shah, J., (afterwards C.J.), with whom majority agreed,
pointed out that the expression accused of any offence is descriptive of the person against
whom the information is provable under section 27. It does not predicate a formal
accusation against him at the time of making the statement sought to be proved, as condition
of its applicability. The Court rejected the suggestion that the provisions of section 161 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and those of section 27 of the Evidence Act were
discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Under the Criminal
Procedure Code if a person not in police custody has given some information to the police in
consequence of which something connected with a crime is discovered, the information is not
provable against him if he is subsequently prosecuted for the crime; but if he were in police
custody at the time that he gave the information, it would have become provable against him.
On the authority of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, Thus the classification is between
persons not in custody and those in custody. The Supreme Court held the classification to be
reasonable. This distinction between persons in custody and persons not in custody, in the
context of admissibility of statement made by them concerning the offence charged cannot be
called arbitrary, artificial or evasive : the legislature has made a real distinction between these
two classes, and has enacted distinct rules about admissibility of statements confessional or
otherwise made by them. The reason for the classification is to encourage people not in
custody to give information about crimes.

11 | P a g e
 CHAPTER IV

OTHER RELEVANT CASE

In Udai Bhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,11 the facts and the decision thereon were as
follows: The complainant went out for a short while by locking his shop. On his return after
about 3/4th of an hour he found his shop broken open and above containing Rs. 2,000/- and
clothes and another box from the pond containing Rs. 200/- stolen. During the investigation
on being interrogated the accused while in police custody brought a box from the pond near
his field and handed it over to the police. The accused also handed over to the police the key
which fitted the lock and said that he had opened the lock of the shop of the complainant with
that key. Recovery memos were prepared in which the police had stated those matter relating
to discovery. It was held that the evidence in regard to the discovery of the key as well as the
box was admissible in evidence under section 27 of the evidence Act. The handing over of
the key was not a confessional statement but the confession made in fact is that with that key
the shop of the complainant was opened and therefore that portion was inadmissible in
evidence and only that portion was admissible which distinctly related to the fact discovered,
i.e., the finding of the key. Similarly, the recovery of the box was provable because there was
no statement of a confessional nature in the recovery memo relating to it. It was also
observed that a discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place form which it is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

In Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh,12 the accused was arrested within four days of the fact of
murder and robbery. He immediately indicated the place where he had hidden the stolen
articles; and a gold ring and currency notes which bore his finger impressions were recovered
within six days. On these facts the Supreme Court observed that, it must be concluded that
the incriminating articles were acquired by the respondent at one and the same time and that
it was he and no one else who had robbed the deceased of the money and the ring and had
hidden them at a place and in a manner which was known to him. Where the police had
already recovered the dead body, the statement of the accused persons as to where they had
thrown off the dead body was held to be not relevant. Recovery of bushirt, pant and a gold
ring at the instance of the accused person was not accepted as a good piece of evidence

11
AIR 1962, SC 1116.
12
AIR 1978 SC 1183 at p. 1196.

12 | P a g e
because it was not probable that he should have taken away the clothings also and buried
them along with the gold ring in the courtyard of his house. Two axes were recovered on the
basis of the statements. The blood on one of them was found to be of human origin. The
rejected of the evidence of recovery was not proper. Recovery of a weapon of offence which
has no nexus with the type of injuries found on the person of the victim was held to be
inadmissible.

13 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

As after going through the research the researcher hypothesis found to be correct. As the
confession given by accused under the custody of police officer is not admissible under the
court of law. Section 25 says that Confession to police officer not to be proved.No
confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence.No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence." And section 26 also says that Confession by accused while in
custody of police not to be proved against him.No confession made by any person whilst
he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate1, shall be proved as against such person.No confession made by any person
whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of
a Magistrate2, shall be proved as against such person." 2[Explanation.In this section
Magistrate does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the
Presidency of Fort St. George 3[***] or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate
exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of
1882)4]. Police officer is not trust worthy that why confession given to police officer or in
police custody is not admissible. But the section 27 says that SECTION 27 of Indian
evidence act talks about that How much of information received from accused may be
proved.Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer,
so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. So this section 27 seems to be the exceptions
to the section 25 and 26 of this act.

14 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
i. Advocate Lal Batuk The law of Evidence (Central law Agency, Allahabad,
21st Edition)
ii. DHIRAJLAL AND RATANLAL, The law of Evidence, Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 21st
ed., 2011.
iii. Rao, Dr. V. Nageshwar, The Indian Evidence Act, Gurgaon: Lexis-Nexis, 2nd ed.,
2015.

WEBSITES
i. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/387768/
ii. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7860/12/12_chapter%205.pdf
iii. http://shortnotesonlaw.blogspot.in/2010/11/state-of-up-vs-deoman-upadhyaya-
1960.html
iv. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8788/16/16_chapter%207.pdf

15 | P a g e