Correct option is B
State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya is the case where the Constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was challenged based on being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 27, ruling that it was not violative of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
Information Booster:
1. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts in a consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a police officer.
2. Article 14 of the Constitution: Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
3. State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya: The Supreme Court held that Section 27 is not violative of Article 14. It provides an exception to the general rule of exclusion of confessions made to police officers and confessions made while in police custody, thus ensuring that such statements can be used as evidence if they lead to the discovery of a fact.
4. Judicial Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 27 does not discriminate but applies uniformly to all persons accused of offences, and the provision serves a crucial role in aiding criminal investigations.
Additional Information:
Option (a): Nandini Satpathi Vs. P. L. Dhani: This case deals with the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Option (b): State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya: This is the correct answer. This case addressed the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section 27 on the basis of Article 14.
Option (c): State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu: This case addressed the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section 27 on the basis of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Option (d): Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra: This case is not directly related to the Constitutional validity of Section 27.
