Supreme Court of India

State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya

1960 INSC 10719601 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The accused, charged with murder, gave information in police custody that led to the recovery of a gandasa. The High Court held S.27 of the Evidence Act discriminatory under Art.14 because it applied only to persons in custody.
Issue
Whether S.27 of the Evidence Act violates Art.14.
Held
S.27 is valid. The distinction between statements by persons in custody and others is a real and rational classification. Only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible.
Principle
S.27 of the Evidence Act is constitutional; it admits only the part of a custodial statement that leads to discovery.
Cite this

Facts

  • The accused, charged with murder, gave information in police custody that led to the recovery of a gandasa. The High Court held S.27 of the Evidence Act discriminatory under Art.14 because it applied only to persons in custody.

Issue

  1. Whether S.27 of the Evidence Act violates Art.14.

Held

  • S.27 is valid. The distinction between statements by persons in custody and others is a real and rational classification. Only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible.

Cite this

Citation

State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya 1960 INSC 107

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/481284/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.