Case Study Of Pakala Narayan Swamy V King Emperor
Judicial Trend
• Pakala Narayan Swamy v. King Emperor
In the present case, the person accused was married to one of the daughters of the Diwan of Pithapuram Estate. The deceased Nukharaju was a peon in the Pithapuram estate. In 1936, the accused and daughter of Diwan who was married to accused visited Pithapuram. It was claimed in the facts of the prosecution’s case was that they borrowed Rs. 3000 from Nukharaju while they were staying in the Pithapuram. After some days, the accused and his wife went back to his place of residence, Berhampur. On 20th March 1937, the deceased Nukharaju received letter from the wife of the accused and asked him to come down to Berhampur in order to collect the money which was due to him. The deceased showed …show more content…
On 21st March, the deceased left for Berhampur. He took the train in order to leave for Berhampur. On 22nd March 1937, the dead body of the deceased was found in the railway compartment in the Puri Railway Station. His body was found in pieces in the compartment. After that the police investigation started and the accused was arrested alleging the murder of the deceased. At the time of the trial only, the wife of the deceased showed the letter in the Court while telling that her husband went to Berhampur in order to collect the money from the accused on the invitation of the accused through the letter. The Privy Council held that the statement which the deceased told his wife were relating to the circumstances that he was going to the place where he was killed and was invited by a particular person and he was going to meet a particular person which led in the death of the deceased and thus will be admissible as Dying declaration. The Privy Council also laid down a test in order to apply this rule which says that the evidence of the circumstances must be closely related to the actual occurrences and if they are …show more content…
The deceased, Shrada was married to the son of the accused who was living in Bombay. It was submitted that the deceased and her husband are not having cordial relationship. Also, the deceased’s husband had extra-marital with another girl named Aruna whom he married by changing the religion to Islam. The suit was initiated by the deceased’s family against the son of the accused. But the proceedings were dropped. One day, the neighbours heard the loud cry of Sharda. They went over her place and saw that the deceased was lying on floor with burns all over on the body. She told the neighbours that her in-laws have sprinkled kerosene on her and set her on fire. She made a similar statement in front of doctor as well as Magistrate and Magistrate finally recorded the statement of the deceased. In this case, the Supreme Court held these successive dying declarations to be admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as all the dying declarations were identical as to each other, circumstances of the actual occurrence and the identity of the
• Pakala Narayan Swamy v. King Emperor
In the present case, the person accused was married to one of the daughters of the Diwan of Pithapuram Estate. The deceased Nukharaju was a peon in the Pithapuram estate. In 1936, the accused and daughter of Diwan who was married to accused visited Pithapuram. It was claimed in the facts of the prosecution’s case was that they borrowed Rs. 3000 from Nukharaju while they were staying in the Pithapuram. After some days, the accused and his wife went back to his place of residence, Berhampur. On 20th March 1937, the deceased Nukharaju received letter from the wife of the accused and asked him to come down to Berhampur in order to collect the money which was due to him. The deceased showed …show more content…
On 21st March, the deceased left for Berhampur. He took the train in order to leave for Berhampur. On 22nd March 1937, the dead body of the deceased was found in the railway compartment in the Puri Railway Station. His body was found in pieces in the compartment. After that the police investigation started and the accused was arrested alleging the murder of the deceased. At the time of the trial only, the wife of the deceased showed the letter in the Court while telling that her husband went to Berhampur in order to collect the money from the accused on the invitation of the accused through the letter. The Privy Council held that the statement which the deceased told his wife were relating to the circumstances that he was going to the place where he was killed and was invited by a particular person and he was going to meet a particular person which led in the death of the deceased and thus will be admissible as Dying declaration. The Privy Council also laid down a test in order to apply this rule which says that the evidence of the circumstances must be closely related to the actual occurrences and if they are …show more content…
The deceased, Shrada was married to the son of the accused who was living in Bombay. It was submitted that the deceased and her husband are not having cordial relationship. Also, the deceased’s husband had extra-marital with another girl named Aruna whom he married by changing the religion to Islam. The suit was initiated by the deceased’s family against the son of the accused. But the proceedings were dropped. One day, the neighbours heard the loud cry of Sharda. They went over her place and saw that the deceased was lying on floor with burns all over on the body. She told the neighbours that her in-laws have sprinkled kerosene on her and set her on fire. She made a similar statement in front of doctor as well as Magistrate and Magistrate finally recorded the statement of the deceased. In this case, the Supreme Court held these successive dying declarations to be admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as all the dying declarations were identical as to each other, circumstances of the actual occurrence and the identity of the