In Indian criminal law, Akala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) is a significant case. The case is well-known for how it interpreted the idea of confession and whether or not it could be used as proof. Pakala Narayana Swami, the accused in the case, filed an appeal with the Privy Council against the ruling of the Pana High Court. The accused's conviction and death sentence imposed by the Berhampur Session Judge were upheld by the High Court.

In this case, a man was killed by his son-in-law because of money problems. On March 23, 1937, the man's body was discovered in a steel trunk inside a third-class compartment at Puri. The Privy Council granted the accused the benefit of the doubt and overturned their conviction. The accused's statement, according to the Privy Council, was a combination of confession and defence of his innocence. Now, let’s go through the facts and the issues of the case to understand the importance of this case in Criminal Law.

Facts
Kurree Nukaraju was an Indian man whose body was found in a steel trunk inside a third-class compartment in Puri, the end of a branch line on the Bengal Nagpur railway. The body had been mutilated into seven pieces when the trunk, which had gone unclaimed, was discovered. Medical evidence clearly indicated that this was a homicide. The police had suspicions about the accused and his family. In a statement provided to the police during the course of the inquiry, the accused stated that the dead had come to his house on March 21, stayed the night in one of the outhouse rooms, and left on the evening of March 22 on a train.

Despite the defence’s objections, the lower courts allowed the admission of this remark. In addition to the disputed testimony, there was strong evidence that the accused had placed an order for a trunk, which was delivered to his residence on March 22. The body of the dead was placed inside the same trunk aboard a train at the Berhampur station on March 23. In a car he had arranged, the accused and the trunk were driven to the station. The deceased's widow further confirmed that on March 20, her late husband told her he was going to Berhampur. He asserted that he got a message from the accused's spouse telling him to chase up his outstanding debt.

The appellant was found guilty of murder by the Sessions Judge at Berhampur, and he was sentenced to death. Following an appeal, the Patna High Court upheld the conviction. By special leave, the appellant appealed to the Privy Council in order to pursue remedy.

The trial court found the accused guilty of murder and gave him the death penalty. This was the first step in the legal hierarchy that led to the Privy Council's landmark decision in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor. The conviction was upheld by the High Court in this case, which prompted an appeal to the Privy Council.

Issues:

• Whether the statements made by the accused can be considered as a confession?
• Whether the statements made by the deceased to his wife regarding the travel to Berhampur to retrieve a loan will qualify as a dying declaration?

Arguments of Appellant

• The appellant made the following claims in front of the Privy Council:
• The widow's, March 20 report that her husband had suggested going to Berhampur to get money cannot be accepted as proof. It neither relates to death nor clarifies the circumstances leading up to death, hence it does not satisfy the requirements of a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Under Section 162 of the CrPC, statements made by the accused to the police prior to their arrest are not admissible since the term "any person" includes the accused.
• Statements made by the accused appellant to the police when they were in custody are not admissible because they do not meet the requirements of Section 25 of the Evidence Act for confessions.

Arguments of the Respondents

• In reply, the petitioner stated:
• Because the wife's remarks were made in the circumstances leading up to the deceased's voyage to Berhampur, where he met his fate, they are admissible as dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The accused's statements are exempt from Section 162's jurisdiction.
• Because the accused appellant made his confession prior to his arrest, it is admissible.
• According to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, garments found to have bloodstains on them are admissible.

Provisions mentioned
Section 32 Indian Evidence Act When it relates to cause of death:

1. 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 that person's death comes into question.
   
   Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

Clause 1 of Section 32 translates into dying declaration, it means that any statement made by a person which revels the cause of death or the circumstance of his death or any transaction where the death of the person is in question and regardless if that person was under the expectation of his death will be taken as Dying Declaration.

Section 27 Indian Evidence Act “How much of information received from accused may be proved.

Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Section 27 translates into Discovery of Facts, it means anything which has been discovered though the facts given to the police officer will be admissible. As according to Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession given to the police officer will not be used against him; will not be admissible.

Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure “Statements to police not to be signed : Use of statements in evidence.

• No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement of record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made.

  Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
   

• Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
   

• Explanation: An omission to state a fact or circumstances in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
   

• Section 162 translates into if any statement is given to the police office by any person then it should not be reduced to signed by the person and the statement given should not be used during inquiry or trial.

Except when the person comes as a prosecution witness during inquiry or trial then the reduced form of statement can be used for collaboration. This section will not be applicable on Section 32 (1) Indian Evidence Act.
 

Judgment:
The Privy Council issued an opinion in which it claimed that the accused's remark was a combination of confession and an attempt to maintain his innocence. The Council reversed the accused's conviction after granting the benefit of the doubt and clarified the following findings:

• The phrase "confession" refers to a declaration made by an accused person that suggests he committed the crime.
• By definition, a confession is an explicit admission of the offense or, at the absolute least, a substantial admission of every detail that makes up the offense.
• Confession cannot be applied to an admission of facts that are even somewhat, if not conclusively, damning.
• A confession cannot be defined as a statement that includes self-explanatory material; it must be rejected or accepted in whole.
• Section 32(1) recognized the deceased's communication to his wife as a dying declaration and declared it admissible.
• The Privy Council ruled that Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibited the admission of a statement taken from the accused prior to their arrest as evidence. The statement was rejected, although additional evidence amply demonstrated the deceased's presence in the accused's residence—the only point the statement attempted to show.
• The Council confirmed that the deceased's statement about his trip to the accused's home and meeting the accused's wife, who lived there, was legitimately included in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King-Emperor. This was regarded as a statement that came under the jurisdiction of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, describing some of the events leading up to the transaction that resulted in his death.
   

Conclusion:
The case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. King-Emperor (1939) is a landmark case in Indian criminal law for its clarification on confessions and dying declarations. Here's a summary of the key takeaways:

• Confession vs. Explanation: The Privy Council established a clear distinction between a confession and an explanation of innocence. A confession explicitly admits guilt, while an explanation attempts to justify actions without admitting the crime.
   
• Confessions and Admissibility: Statements containing self-exculpatory elements cannot be used as confessions. The prosecution must accept or reject the entire statement.
   
• Dying Declarations: The court recognized the deceased's statement to his wife about traveling to collect a debt as a valid dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.
   
• Police Statements: Statements made to the police before arrest are inadmissible under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This case serves as a precedent for ensuring fair trials by protecting the accused from self-incrimination and ensuring the reliability of evidence. It also highlights the importance of distinguishing between admissions and confessions, and the admissibility of statements based on legal provisions.

End-Notes:

• Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor: A Study in Confession and Dying Declarations