The wife of NS was indebted to the deceased KN to extent of Rs. 3,000.0. A number of letters signed by the wife of NS were recovered from the deceased’s house in this regard. On 20th March 1987 the deceased KN received a letter which was unsigned but it was certain that it had come from the wife of Ns inviting KN to receive his dues. KN’s widow revealed that h KN received a letter which was unsigned but it was certain that it had come from the wife of Ns inviting KN to receive his dues. KN’s widow revealed that her husband had showed her that letter on the very day and had told her that he was going to NS’s place B next morning as NS’s wife had invited him to collect his dues form her. KN left his house next day in time to catch the train for B. On 23rd March 1987 KN’s body cut into seven pieces was found in a steel trunk in a railway compartment of a train, where it was left unclaimed. After investigation NS was prosecuted for murder of KN.

(a)        On the above facts frame a charge of murder against NS.

(b)        In the above case the prosecution proved that-

The accused’s wife was indebted to the deceased. (ii) The deceased had told his wife on 20th March 1987 that he was going to the accused’s place B for receiving his debt back and in fact he did leave for accused’s place B next day. (iii) The steel trunk was purchased by a dhobi for and on behalf of the accused. (iv) Some other details about the arrival of the deceased at the accused’s house, discovery of blood stained clothes and transportation of the trunk to the railway station were also proved.

The defence advanced following arguments:

(i)         There was no eyewitness to the occurrence.

(ii) Statement of the deceased KN to his wife that he was going to accused’s place B is inadmissible in evidence being privileged communication between husband and wife.

(iii) It is also inadmissible in evidence U/S 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. (iv) Statement of the accused to the Police that the deceased arrive at his place cannot be admitted in evidence, as it would be violative of Sec. 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure.