JUDGMENT 1. The questions argued before us relate to the admissibility and credibility of the statements made by Gopal Mahto before the chowkldar Digu Dome and Haladhar Mahto, Maniram Mahata and Shama Charan Sarkar. These statements, criminating the Appellants, are alleged to have been made on the night of the 3rd March 1906, shortly after the occurrence. The statement made by Gopal to the Sub Inspector of Police on the following morning la conceded to be Inadmissible. That the woman Nilmani alias Lily was killed on the night of the 3rd March is the only certain fact in the case. The exact time, the exact place and most of the surrounding circumstances are shrouded in darkness. The testimony of the chance witnesses like Pusa Manto, Babu Mahto, Karma Mahto, Jhoru Mahto and Sheikh Nazir is utterly worthless. They have not been relied on by the learned Counsel for the Crown before us and were very properly discarded by the lower Court. Eliminating the testimony of these and similar witnesses, there remain only the statements of Gopal Mahto, who denied their truth on the 6th March and again before the Committing Magistrate and also the Sessions Judge. In the Sessions Court Gopal gave a different version of the story, a version which he stated for the first time on the 6th March and which was entirely contradictory to the statements made on the 3rd and the 4th March. That Gopal Mahto is utterly wrothless as a witness, that his testimony In Court must also be eliminated as unreliable is fairly conceded by the prosecution as well as the defence. He is a man of despicable character and has made statements most recklessly. 2. The difficulty in detecting the real murderer or murderers has arisen, as in many such cases, from the investigating police-officers following a wrong track and being misled by interested persons, omitting to follow any other clue. In the present case, three theories are suggested and two of them were suggested to the investigating police-officers. The death of Lily might have been caused by some or all the Appellants or by the persons named by Gopal Mahto, on the 6th March or by Gopal himself. None of these theories is a priori improbable. There are materials on the record on which any of these theories might obtain support. The death of Lily might have been caused by some or all the Appellants or by the persons named by Gopal Mahto, on the 6th March or by Gopal himself. None of these theories is a priori improbable. There are materials on the record on which any of these theories might obtain support. But no attempt was made to develop the last two and we are left to draw a conclusion from the statements made or alleged to have been made by this wretched man Gopal. Even if Gopal made these statements, and we shall presently show that it is more than doubtful that he did make these statements, it will be very difficult to come to a finding against the Appellants, relying only on these statements uncorroborated as they are. 3. Did Gopal make any statements on the night of the 3rd March criminating his father, brothers and cousin? Digu Dome to whom the statement is said to have been first made is a man of the lowest class. He is the village chowkidar and quite in the control of Haladhar Mahto, the talukdar. He gives an evidently wrong hour for the arrival at his house and his conduct in not visiting the dead body of Lily before going to Maniram's or Haladhar's is very suspicious. There are evident marks of concoction in the story given by him. Haladhar, as his statements in cross-examination show, was not on good terms with the accused: there had been civil and criminal cases and rent suits in which they had been ranged on opposite sides. Maniram and Shama Charan show in their depositions marks of tutoring. We feel the greatest difficulty la believing that Gopal made any voluntary statements to these witnesses such as are attributed to him. The probability seems to be that after the murder of Lily, Gopal was arrested or kept in custody on suspicion and the story of his having made statements to Digu and others criminating the accused was concocted during their journey to the thana. He was on and before the journey in custody on suspicion of having committed the murder or being deeply implicated in it. He might have been induced to make a statement before the Sub-Inspector to get his own release. 4. And then, supposing Gopal made the statements, we cannot place the slightest reliance on them. He was on and before the journey in custody on suspicion of having committed the murder or being deeply implicated in it. He might have been induced to make a statement before the Sub-Inspector to get his own release. 4. And then, supposing Gopal made the statements, we cannot place the slightest reliance on them. He is stated to have said from the very beginning that he would not repeat the statements in Court. He wanted to save himself. The circumstances he narrates are inconsistent in themselves. It was the first day of the Mohurrum and there was moonlight until about 12 A.M. People must have been about and the spot of the sugarcane field pointed out by the prosecution where Gopal and Lily had been together was open and visible from the east and south, the sugarcane having already been taken off and the land ploughed. The story as given by Gopal on the 3rd and the 4th seems to us to be absurd on the face of it. We cannot place any reliance on it, if Gopal did actually narrate it, on the night of the 3rd March. 5. We are also of opinion that the statements of Gopal are not admissible against the accused. They are hearsay and proved only by those who heard them. They were not made in the presence of the accused. Hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible and the exceptions are to be found in the Indian Evidence Act. Other exceptions cannot and should not be added. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on sec. 6 of the Evidence Act and Illus. (a) to it and also on Sarat Dhobni's case ILR 10 Cal. 302 (1884). The facts of the case of Sarat Dhobni ILR 10 Cal. 302 (1884) are very clearly distinguishable. There the person who made the statement was dead, and she was the victim. The statement was made in the presence of the accused and the accused did not protest. The evidence was admissible under sec. 8 of the Evidence Act. We cannot accept that case as an authority for the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The statement In that case was closely bound up with the occurrence and on the facts proved the learned Judges held that it was also admissible under sec. 6. 6. The evidence was admissible under sec. 8 of the Evidence Act. We cannot accept that case as an authority for the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The statement In that case was closely bound up with the occurrence and on the facts proved the learned Judges held that it was also admissible under sec. 6. 6. Sec. 6 lays down a rule of admissibility of evidence which can be best explained by the words of the learned framer of the Act. In his Digest of the Laws of Evidence Sir James Fitz James Stephen says as follows:-"A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue. Every fact which is part of the same transaction as the facts in issue IS deemed to be relevant to the facts in issue, although it may not be actually in issue, and although if it were not part of the same transaction lb might be excluded as hearsay. Whether any particular fact is or is not part of the same transaction as the facts in issue is a question of law upon which no principle has been stated by authority and on which single Judges have given different decisions." 7. In order to make the statement of a bystander admissible, and Gopal must be supposed to be a bystander, it must have been made, as contemplated by sec 6 and Illus. (a) to it, at the time the transaction was taking place or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction. If the transaction has terminated and then the statement is made, the statement is irrelevant. The admissibility is dependent on continuity. The statement to be relevant must be made when the transaction is in progress. When the transaction is concluded, the statement of a bystander is clearly inadmissible under the section. In fact it would be dangerous to accept the statement of a bystander made after the conclusion of the transaction, when an interval has elapsed disconnecting the thread of the transaction. 8. In the present case Gopal, if he made any statement, made it after the transaction was over. In fact it would be dangerous to accept the statement of a bystander made after the conclusion of the transaction, when an interval has elapsed disconnecting the thread of the transaction. 8. In the present case Gopal, if he made any statement, made it after the transaction was over. We do not exactly know what the interval between the murder of Lily and Gopal's statement to the chowkidar was. Gopal was not then in such condition of mind as to exclude the supposition of his fabricating evidence or his being tutored. The evidence does not make out his state of mind to be such as the Sessions Judge describes it to have been. He was perfectly in his senses at the chowkidar's and Maniram's. He talked quite sensibly and Maniram did not find any peculiarity in his mental or physical condition. We cannot therefore hold that his statements are admissible. The result, therefore, is that the conviction and the sentences passed on all the accused must be set aside and we direct that they be discharged.