9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the widow's statement under Section 32(1), Evidence Act. 2. Admissibility of the accused's statement to the police under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 3. Sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction for murder. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the Widow's Statement under Section 32(1), Evidence Act: The first issue addressed was whether the widow's statement that her deceased husband told her he was going to Berhampur to receive payment from the accused's wife was admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Section 32(1) allows for statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or any circumstances leading to it to be admissible. The court clarified that the statement need not be made after the cause of death has arisen or when the deceased anticipates death. The "circumstances of the transaction" include statements about the deceased's journey to the place where they were killed or reasons for the journey. The court concluded that the widow's statement was rightly admitted as it related to the circumstances leading to the deceased's death. 2. Admissibility of the Accused's Statement to the Police under Section 162, CrPC: The second issue was whether the accused's statement to the police, made before his arrest, was admissible under Section 162, CrPC. Section 162 prohibits the use of statements made to police during an investigation. The court noted that the section applies to "any person," including those who later become accused. It was emphasized that the plain meaning of the words should be adhered to, and there was no exception for statements made by an accused. The court referenced multiple judgments and concluded that the statement should have been rejected. It was further noted that the statement did not qualify as a confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as it contained self-exculpatory material. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Conviction for Murder: Despite the exclusion of the accused's statement, the court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court found overwhelming evidence that the trunk containing the deceased's body was bought by the accused and transported to the station in a vehicle ordered by him. The deceased had set out to visit the accused's house, and the trunk with his body was placed on the train shortly after. The accused's denial of knowing the deceased or having the trunk was found to be untrue. The court concluded that there was ample evidence to support the conviction for murder, and the proceedings did not result in a failure of justice. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The court advised His Majesty accordingly.
|
