9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of the widow's statement under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Admissibility of the accused's statement to the police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction for murder. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the Widow's Statement under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: The first issue addressed is whether the widow's statement that the deceased told her he was going to Berhampur to receive payment from the accused's wife was admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. This section allows statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or any circumstances leading to their death to be admissible. The court clarified that the statement need not be made in anticipation of death and can include circumstances leading up to the death. The statement by the deceased that he was going to meet the accused's wife for payment was considered a circumstance of the transaction resulting in his death. Therefore, the statement was rightly admitted as evidence. 2. Admissibility of the Accused's Statement to the Police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The second issue involves the admissibility of the accused's statement to the police, which was argued to be protected under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section prohibits the use of statements made to police during an investigation. The court reviewed various judgments and concluded that the words "any person" in the section include the accused. The section aims to prevent the use of such statements to encourage free disclosure of information and protect against the unreliability of police testimony. Consequently, the accused's statement admitting that the deceased arrived at his house was inadmissible under Section 162. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Conviction for Murder: The final issue addressed is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for murder, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the accused's statement. The court noted that even without the accused's statement, there was overwhelming evidence to support the conviction. The evidence included the purchase of the trunk by the accused, the transportation of the trunk containing the body to the train station, and the deceased's departure to visit the accused's house. The court found that these facts, combined with the accused's false denials and lack of explanation, provided ample evidence to support the conviction. The court dismissed the argument that the accused could have been merely an accessory after the fact, concluding that the proceedings did not result in a failure of justice. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The widow's statement was rightly admitted under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused's statement to the police was inadmissible under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for murder even without the accused's statement.
|
