PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
  • Post author:
  • Post category:Case Analysis
  • Reading time:7 mins read

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case explores whether an accused’s statement, made before formal arrest but under police custody, qualifies as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant, Perumal Raja @ Perumal, was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his cousin, Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The conviction hinges on circumstantial evidence, including a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the victim’s decomposed body. The Supreme Court held that “custody” under Section 27 need not mean formal custody and can include restraint or surveillance by the police. Additionally, the appellant’s statements, knowledge of the crime scene, and lack of an explanation further bolstered the prosecution’s case. The conviction was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, motive, and recovery of the body as directed by the accused.

Keywords: Circumstantial evidence, Disclosure statement, Police custody, Doctrine of confirmation, Adverse inference

B) CASE DETAILS

  • Judgement Cause Title: Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
  • Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019
  • Judgement Date: January 3, 2024
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Quorum: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V. Bhatti
  • Author: Justice Sanjiv Khanna
  • Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 87; 2024 INSC 13
  • Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25-27, Evidence Act, 1872
  • Judgments Overruled: None
  • Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case revolves around the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth, with suspicion arising due to inter-family property disputes. The appellant’s uncle, Rajaram, returned to India to investigate his son Rajini’s sudden disappearance. Upon arrival, Rajaram found his house in disarray, items missing, and subsequently was murdered. The appellant’s disclosure statement later led to the recovery of Rajini’s body parts from the Uppanaru canal/river. This case probes the legal interpretation of “custody” within Section 27 of the Evidence Act, allowing statements by an accused in police custody to be admissible if they lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. Circumstances Leading to Rajini’s Disappearance and Death: Rajini went missing, causing his father, Rajaram, to return from France. On his arrival, Rajaram discovered a disturbed home, indicating potential foul play.

  2. Rajaram’s Murder: After filing a complaint regarding his son’s disappearance, Rajaram was murdered. His father lodged a formal missing report for Rajini soon after.

  3. Appellant’s Role: The appellant was detained during investigations, where he disclosed details about Rajini’s murder, implicating himself and other co-accused.

  4. Body Recovery: Based on the appellant’s statement, authorities recovered Rajini’s decomposed remains and personal effects from designated locations, strengthening the circumstantial evidence against him.

  5. Property Dispute as Motive: Property disputes within the family were highlighted as a potential motive, particularly the appellant’s alleged interest in acquiring Rajaram’s property.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Interpretation of Custody under Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872: Whether “custody” in Section 27 can include informal restraint or surveillance by the police, not necessarily formal arrest.

  2. Admissibility of Disclosure Statements under Circumstantial Evidence: The admissibility of a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of the body and related evidence.

  3. Burden of Proof in Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Whether the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstances pointing conclusively to the accused’s guilt.

  4. Implication of Co-Accused under Section 27: Whether statements made by one accused can implicate other accused persons.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for Perumal Raja submitted the following:

  1. Challenge on Definition of Custody: The appellant argued that the term “custody” under Section 27 should imply formal custody through arrest. He contested the admissibility of his statement since it was made before his formal arrest.

  2. Inconsistencies in Evidence: The appellant claimed inconsistencies in the recovery of the body and other items. He argued that the police, having prior knowledge of the facts, manipulated the circumstances to fabricate the discovery through his disclosure.

  3. Absence of Direct Evidence: The appellant argued that the absence of eyewitnesses made the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the State submitted the following:

  1. Broad Interpretation of Custody: The respondent argued for a pragmatic interpretation of Section 27, positing that “custody” need not entail formal arrest. Restraint or surveillance was sufficient to establish custody in this context.

  2. Doctrine of Confirmation by Subsequent Events: The State argued that the discovery of Rajini’s body and personal items following the appellant’s statement validated the reliability of his confession under Section 27.

  3. Presence of Motive: The State highlighted family property disputes as a motive for the murder, pointing to the appellant’s involvement and benefit from Rajini’s death.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Sections 25-27, Evidence Act, 1872: These sections restrict the use of confessions made to police but allow for exceptions where information leads to the discovery of new facts.

  2. Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code: Section 302 deals with punishment for murder, while Section 201 addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offense.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court upheld that “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act includes any form of police control, restraint, or surveillance and does not require formal arrest. Therefore, the appellant’s disclosure was admissible, leading to the recovery of the body and other evidence, confirming his involvement in the crime. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence, motive, and the appellant’s inability to provide an alternative explanation strengthened the case against him.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court emphasized that Section 27 should be carefully applied, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence, due to potential misuse. Courts should assess such statements with caution, ensuring that they lead to genuine discoveries.

c. GUIDELINES
  1. Broad Definition of Custody: Custody under Section 27 does not necessitate formal arrest.
  2. Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence: For convictions based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events linking the accused to the crime.
  3. Doctrine of Confirmation by Subsequent Events: Courts can admit evidence discovered due to statements made by the accused, even in informal custody.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 27 underscores a pragmatic approach to “custody,” allowing effective police investigation while balancing individual rights. This case sets a significant precedent on applying disclosure statements in circumstantial evidence cases and reinforces judicial caution to prevent misuse of such statements by law enforcement.

J) REFERENCES

  • Cases Referred

    • State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14.
    • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79.
    • Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 1 SCR 88.
    • Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [2010] 2 SCR 22.

  • Statutes Referred

    • Evidence Act, 1872.
    • Indian Penal Code, 1860.