STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MADHA BHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Now so far as the dying declarations made by Baliben before the relatives before the Medical Officer and before the Executive Magistrate are concerned the first question is whether the said dying declarations are admissible in evidence looking to the fact that the medical evidence clearly shows that Baliben did not die as a result of any of these injuries. The evidence of Dr. Rajnikant Modi Ex. 8 read with the post mortem notes Ex. 9 clearly establishes that Baliben did not die as a result of the injuries but died on account of septic- aemia and shock The evidence clearly establishes that the cause of death had nothing to do with the injuries received by Baliben at the hands of some person. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion looking to this medical evidence that the prosecution has failed to establish that Baliben died a homicidal death.

(2.) Under sec. 32(1) of the Evidence Act statements written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is dead are relevant when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death in cases in which the cause of death comes into question. The medical evidence clearly shows that Baliben did not die on account of the injuries inflicted on her. Hence the statements made by Baliben to her daughter neighbours the Medical Officer and the Executive Magistrate as regards the incident of infliction of knife blows to her cannot be said to be statements as to the cause of her death. The next question that would arise for consideration is whether it is possible to say that these statements were made by Baliben as to any of the circumstances which resulted in her death.

(3.) In the case of PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI V. EMPEROR A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47 the Privy Council had an occasion to explain as to what is the meaning of the words circumstances of the transaction and what statements would amount to circumstances of the transaction within the meaning of sec. 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has observed as follows: