Pakala Narayan Swami Vs Emperor

 

CASE COMMENT

Pakala Narayan Swami Vs Emperor AIR 1939

Equivalent citations: (1939) 41 BOMLR 428

Author: Justice Atkin.

Bench: Justice Atkin, Justice G Rankin, Justice Porter, Justice Thankerton, Justice Wright

APPELLANT: ............................................................................      “Pakala Narayan Swami ”

                                                             V.

RESPONDENT: ...........................................      “ Emperor”

DATE OF JUDGMENT- 19/01/1939

BENCH:

Justice Atkin, Justice G Rankin, 

Justice Porter, Justice Thankerton,

Justice Wright

CITATION:

(1939) 41 BOMLR 428

 

Introduction

This case is related to S.32 of Indian evidence act,1872 and S.162 of CrPC 1898. There were majorly two considerations before the privy council.

1. Whether the statement of a person who is dead is confession or not? And,

2.The importance of statement made during investigation to the police officer.

Provisions of Law involved

Indian evidence act,1872 s.32(1) – when it relates to cause of death and CrPC S.162 of 1898 statement to police need not be signed -use of statement in evidence

Issues

1. On whether the deceased statement will be regarded as Dying Declaration?

2. whether the statement given to her wife soon before his death will be considered or not?

3.whether statement given to police officers during the course of investigation is relevant or not.

 

 

Facts of the case

The facts of this case was that RS 3000 were taken by deceased as a loan at a interest rate of 18% and as a result of which there were many letters written by the appellant wife in respect of the loan, and as a result of one of the letters written by her on 20^th march 1937 to the deceased to come to their place and take the  money which he has given to her as a loan. The  deceased told his wife about the letter.  The deceased left for Behrampur on 23^rd of march 1937 by train but after 2 days from leaving his house his body was found which a was cut into seven pieces and was in a steel box in a standing train at puri. The wife of deceased recognized his body and as a result of which investigation was started. On 4^th of April investigation officer recorded the statement of the appellant and the neighbour and on the basis of which PN swami, his wife, his brother in law and his servant were arrested. SDM Chattarpur charged them on murder. And later on discharged them by saying that there were no sufficient evidence to support the charge. After that Sessions Court using his power under CrPC and  called upon the accused to show cause why they should not be committed for trial, and in July,1937, ordered the present accused and his wife to be committed too the court of session to stand their trial for offences under section of IPC 120B, 302 and 201 at the trial the sessions judge acquitted the appellants wife of all the charges but convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to death. Then appeal was filed in high court of Patna whichalsoaffirmedthepunishmentgiven by Session court. Then an appeal by special leave was filed in Privy Council and there also he was convicted of death penalty.

Contentions

Arguments given by appellant

The wife of deceased had stated that his husband was going to behrampur to obtain money as he was called cannot be considered as dying declaration because it is neither related to death nor it explains the circumstances of cause of death.

And the statement made by the accused before the police prior to arrest cannot be admitted underS.162 of CrPC because the term any person used in S.162 includes the accused

Lastly, the statement made to the police during the custody is not admissible under s.25 of Indian Evidence Act

 

Arguments given by Respondent

The respondent opposed above contention by saying that the statement of wife of deceased in dying declaration within S.32 is admissible because it was made in those circumstances in which his husband left for behrampur statement given by accused does not come under the ambit of S.162 confession of the accused was admissible because it was made prior to arrest. It is true that S.25 of evidence act in which statements made to police is inadmissible. But, discovery of clothes with a blood spot makes it admissible under S.27 of evidence act.

Rational

A rational behind this judgment was that since the said thing of the deceased to his wife was treated as dying declaration because all the things were proven to be true. but, the main point in this judgment was of S.25 of Indian evidence act which states that anything said to a police officer during the investigation is not admissible under court but, since the clothes with blood spot were found in the accused house it became admissible under S.27 of the evidence                                         act which says about the discovery of thing admitted by accused which leads to its admissibility

Inference

It was clear from the facts of the case that there was a clear case of S.120B AND S.302 IPCand s.201because the death of the deceased was pre planned because they had made a box so that they can cut his body into pieces and put it in a train. It was a clear case that they don’t wanted to return the money but they lied to him that they are willing to return his money and as a result of which deceased went to their home and was killed. So the accused must be given the capital punishment because it was a very severe offence because killing of a man is another thing but cutting them into was also very severe and since they tried to remove the evidence they should be punished under S.201 also. So since they had committed the heinous crime so they should be given the capital punishment.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of this case is that since the accused was given death penalty in Sessions and High court. So he appealed in privy council to prove his innocence but after hearing all the contentions of both the parties Lord Atkin affirm the sentence and rejected his appeal and given some important principles that the circumstances to be proved under S.32 under the Indian evidence act must be such that it must be closely relate to the incident and which describe the cause of death and the statement made before police under S.162 Of CrPC cannot be held to be a confession. So, at last it can be concluded that the accused was given death penalty and justice was given to the widow wife.