The admissibility of evidence and relevance of conduct under the Evidence Act were central to the court's decision.

1. The two appellants have been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to 12 stripes each for committing rape. Basuvi, the woman whom they are said to have raped on 26th August 1929, was found drowned on 30th August 1929 in a neighboring canal.

2. Therefore she has not given evidence and a preliminary question of law arises whether her statement to her mother-in-law P. W. 2, made shortly after the alleged departure of the two accused from her bedroom on 26th August 1929 is admissible in evidence. The learned Judge holds that it is admissible not only under Section 32 (1), Evidence Act, as relating to the cause of her death; but also under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, an observation which argues little attention either to fact or law.

3. The woman is said to have been raped on Monday and was alive on Thursday morning and so Section 32 can have no applicability. That section refers to the actual cause of death, or to the transaction resulting in death. If a woman is raped, and decides three clays later to commit suicide the rape is not the cause of her death or, transaction resulting in her death, though it may be the contingent motive. Then her statement could only be relevant under Section 6, if it is so Connected with her rape as to form part of the same transaction is one of what are known as the res gestae. Taylor offers as the best general idea of what is meant by res gestae everything that may fairly be considered an incident of the event under discussion and proceeds to lay down that a mere narrative of a past occurrence cannot explain an act. The leading case upon statements made after ravishment is Regina v. Lillyman [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, and there it is assumed at the very outset that such a statement is no part of the res gestae: p. 170.

4. As regards Section 8, it must be borne in mind that section covers the relevancy of conduct. If the conduct of a woman who has been ravished is such that she lodges a complaint, then that conduct is relevant and the terms in which the com-plaint was made are relevant as conduct but they are not relevant as direct proof of the act. There is no reason to suppose that here the statutory law of India departs from the Common Law of England and the point is clearly stated in Regina v. Lillyman [1896] 2 Q.B. 167 the particulars of the complaint may so far as they relate to the charge against the prisoner be given in evidence, not as being evidence of the facts complained of but as evidence of the consistency of the conduct of the prosecutrix with the story told by her in the witness-box and as neatening consent on her part.

5. Therefore if she does not go into the witnessbox there is nothing to confirm or corroborate and the statement or com-plaint cannot be proved. Section 8 does not render it admissible.

6. Mukkadi Gowda, P. W. 1, had often told his master D. W. 1, that his wife was a loose woman and he wanted to get rid of her. He was even saying this in August 1929. On 26th August he was away from home leaving only women in the house, his wife Basuvi, his mother Rachi, P. W. 2. and his aunt Sidhi, P. W. 4.

7. Rachi heard Basuvi cry out "Ayyo, appa" at about midnight and taking a light went out and talked with one Chikkamalla P. W. 6, whom she found waiting outside. Chikkamalla told her that he had been hired by the two accused to cut firewood and they had left him outside while they went into her house. Rachi says that she herself saw the accused running away; probably at most she saw persons running away and concluded from what Chikkamalla told her that she had seen the accused. She then went to Basuvi whom she found quite naked. She does not say that she noticed any kind of injury upon her. Then she went back to bed and slept soundly. The aunt, P. W. 4, tells the same story.

8. At sunset on the 28th, Makkai Gowda returned home and heard from his wife that she had been raped. He went to two leaders of the caste but found them out and spent that night with his wife leaving h