PAKALA NARAYAN

SWAMI
VS
KING EMPEROR

PSDA
MAYANK MISHRA
1191770519
5M

LAW OF EVIDENCE
Vivekananda institute of Professional Studies
Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Apart from my efforts the success of any project depends largely on the encouragement and
guidelines of many others. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the people who have
been instrumental in the successful completion of this project. I would like to show my greatest
appreciation to Ms. Shushila Sharma, Department of evidence at Vivekananda Institute of
Professional Studies. I can’t thank her enough for her tremendous support and help. Without her
encouragement and guidance this project would not have been materialized.

The guidance and support of received from her as well as from my beloved friends and family
are vital for the success of the project. I am immensely grateful for their constant support and
efforts.
 PAKALA NARAYAN SWAMI VS KING EMPEROR

(AIR 1939 PC 47)

FACTS OF THE CASE

On Tuesday, March 23, 1937, at noon the body of the deceased man was found in a steel trunk in
a third class compartment at Puri, the terminus of a branch line on the Bengal Nagpur Railway,
where the trunk had been left unclaimed. The body had been cut into seven portions and the
medical evidence left no doubt that the man had been murdered. The body of the deceased was
later identified by his widow. He was a man around the age of 40 years and had been peon in the
service of Dewan of Pithapur.
One of the daughters of the deceased was the wife of the accused. About 1919 the accused and his
wife were married. They went to live at Berhampur about 250 miles from Pithapur. They returned
to Pithapur during 1933 and on account of their needs of money the accused’s wife borrowed Rs.
3000 at interest at the rate of 18% per annum. About 50 letters and notes proving these transactions
signed by the accused’s wife were found in the deceased man’s house at Pithapur after his death.
on 20th March 1937 the deceased man received a letter the contents of which were not signed but
it was reasonably clear that it invited him to come to Berhampur that day or next day. Kuree
Nukaraju’s (the deceased) widow told the court that on that day her husband showed her a letter
and said that he was going to Berhampur as Swami’s wife had written to him inviting him to come
to receive payment of his dues. The deceased left his place on 21st march to catch the train for
Berhampur. And on Tuesday 23rd March his body was found in a steel trunk in a third class
compartment of a train at Puri.
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the statement of the accused can be considered as confession?

2. Whether the statement of the deceased to his wife that he is going to Berhampur to
take back his loan was considered as a dying declaration?
 JUDGEMENT

The Privy Council expressed the opinion that the statement of the accused was partly confession and
partly explanation for his innocence. By giving the benefit of doubt, the Privy Council set aside the
conviction of the accused with the following observation.

The word confession can be construed from a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that
he had committed the crime.

A confession either admits in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially admits all the facts which
constitute the offence.

An admission of a gravely incriminating facts even if a conclusively incriminating facts cannot be

considered as a confession

A statement which contain self-explanatory matter cannot amount to confession. It must be either be
taken as whole or rejected.

The statement of the deceased to his wife was considered as a dying declaration and hence admissible
under section 32(1).

The circumstances under Section 32 under the Indian Evidence Act require that it must specify
the cause of death and be circumstances of the transaction. In this case, the deceased left by
saying to his wife that- “he is going to Behrampur because the wife of accused has called him to
receive money.” The circumstances of the transaction all such that it reflects the causes of death
because he was murdered in Behrampur. The statement of accused before the police are
admissible, before Section 162 of CrPc was the term ‘any person’ thought that person may later
become an accused. When such statements were recorded, he was not arrested. Discovery of
clothes with blood spots upon them is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act. The
statement accused describing himself to be innocent, does not come within the self-exculpatory
statement, because confession only includes admission of a crime.
 CONCLUSION

In these circumstances, there is adequate evidence proving the deceased's attendance at the
accused's residence, which was the sole purpose of the statement. Faced with this challenge, Mr.
Pritt endeavoured to prove that there was insufficient proof of his client's guilt regardless of
whether the statement was rejected or admitted. He claimed that the circumstances supported the
accused's claim that he was just an accessory after the fact to a murder to which he was not a
participant. Their Lordships are unable to claim that there was insufficient evidence for the judge
of fact to convict of murder. The accused guy was discovered in possession of a trunk containing
the disfigured body of a man who had recently been murdered, a trunk that he had acquired just
over twelve hours before it was placed in the train. He made no attempt to explain himself,
settling for a denial that he knew the man, that he had visited his home, or that he had seen the
trunk. All of these claims were false. It is hard to conclude that the proceedings that ended in a
murder conviction resulted in a failure of justice under these circumstances. The appeal should
be dismissed for these grounds, and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.