EMPEROR Vs. MANCHANKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the latter objected to is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as containing statements which accompany and explain the conduct of the deceased (i.e., a person an offence against whom is the subject of this proceeding) in petitioning the Commissioner of Police for police protection against apprehended acts of or on behalf of accused No. 2, such conduct being influenced by a fact in issue (viz., accused No. 2's alleged intention to cause deceased's death, cf. Section 5, ill (a)) and a relevant fact (viz., accused No. 2's alleged ill-will towards deceased constituting a motive for accused No. 2's alleged complicity in the stabbing of deceased).

(2.) Even accepting the view laid down in Queen-Empress V/s. Abdullah (1885) I.L.R. 7 All. 385, f.b., that the conduct in question must directly and immediately influence, or be influenced, by a fact in issue or relevant fact, it is clear that the condition is satisfied. The letter shows it was written as the direct consequence of the alleged ill-will of accused No. 2 towards deceased and of deceased's fear that he might be assaulted.

(3.) No doubt the act of petitioning the Commissioner does not of itself directly show that the alleged ill-will actually existed ; it shows, however, that deceased had quarrelled with accused No. 2 and believed there was this ill-will, and consequent danger to himself, and (though he might be under a delusion) still his belief and his action due to it are facts which support an inference suggested by a relevant fact, (viz, the alleged quarrel between the deceased and accused No. 2) so as to be itself relevant under Secs.9 and 14 of the Indian Evidence Act.