In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has redefined the concept of ‘custody’ under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, asserting that it extends beyond formal arrest. The court, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, declared that the term encompasses various forms of police control, including restraint, surveillance, or any restriction.
Diverging from a recent ruling in Rajesh v. State of MP 2023, the bench emphasized its allegiance to the Constitution Bench’s precedent in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya. This pivotal decision clarified that Section 25 of the Evidence Act applies irrespective of the accused’s custody status during the confession.
The court also referenced Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 509, affirming that ‘custody’ is not confined to formal detention but encompasses police surveillance, restrictions, or restraints. Distinctively, the court highlighted the comma between “person accused of an offence” and “in the custody of a police officer” in Section 27, advocating for a nuanced reading.
Arguing for a broad interpretation of “police custody,” the court cautioned against adopting a narrow or technical perspective, which could potentially allow the police to manipulate FIR filing and arrests. The court contended that as soon as an accused falls under police control, they lose their liberty and are subject to checks, hence falling under the legal definition of ‘custody’ in Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act.
In its final assertion, the court stated, “Thus, in our considered view the correct interpretation would be 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, as earlier observed, to include surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police.”
The case in question, Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, involved the appellant’s arrest based on a disclosure statement regarding the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. Despite being detained in another case related to the murder of Rajaram, the court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, citing incriminating circumstances, lack of explanation, and a reasonable adverse inference drawn from the appellant’s denial during the trial.
