( 1 ) NOW so far as the dying declarations made by Baliben before the relatives before the Medical Officer and before the Executive Magistrate are concerned the first question is whether the said dying declarations are admissible in evidence looking to the fact that the medical evidence clearly shows that Baliben did not die as a result of any of these injuries. The evidence of Dr. Rajnikant Modi Ex. 8 read with the post mortem notes Ex. 9 clearly establishes that Baliben did not die as a result of the injuries but died on account of septic- aemia and shock The evidence clearly establishes that the cause of death had nothing to do with the injuries received by Baliben at the hands of some person. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion looking to this medical evidence that the prosecution has failed to establish that Baliben died a homicidal death.

( 2 ) UNDER sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act statements written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is dead are relevant 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 death comes into question. The medical evidence clearly shows that Baliben did not die on account of the injuries inflicted on her. Hence the statements made by Baliben to her daughter neighbours the Medical Officer and the Executive Magistrate as regards the incident of infliction of knife blows to her cannot be said to be statements as to the cause of her death. The next question that would arise for consideration is whether it is possible to say that these statements were made by Baliben as to any of the circumstances which resulted in her death.

( 3 ) IN the case of PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1939 P. C. 47 the Privy Council had an occasion to explain as to what is the meaning of the words circumstances of the transaction and what statements would amount to circumstances of the transaction within the meaning of sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has observed as follows:circumstances of the transaction is a phrase no doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in circumstantial evidence which includes evidence of all relevant facts.

( 4 ) IT is on the other hand narrower than res gesta. Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and must be of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. It is not necessary that there should be a known trans- action other than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused for the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that the cause of (the declarants) death comes into question. General expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of the death will not be admissible But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed or as to his reasons for so proceeding or that he was going to meet a particular person or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circum- stances of the transaction and would be so whether the person was unknown or was not the person accused. Such statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. The statement admissible under sec. 32 (1) may be made before the cause of death has arisen or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. 9 Looking to the medical evidence on record it is crystal clear that the injuries had no connection whatsoever with the death of Baliben in the present case. In view of this it is difficult to say that the statements made by Baliben as regards this incident relate to circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of MODI SINGH V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 900