J. P. DESAI, J. ( 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. 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 had an occasion to consider whether when it is not possible to hold that the death was on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased the statement made by the deceased was relevant under sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that clause (1) of sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that clause (1) of sec. 32 makes a statement of a person who has died relevant only when that 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 persons death comes into question. The Supreme Court has further observed that when the deceased is not proved to have died as a result of injuries received by him in the incident where the deceased is alleged to have been killed his statement relating to that incident cannot be said to be the statement as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resul- ted in his death. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the statement was not relevant under sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. It appears from the facts of the said case that it was not established that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him and hence the Supreme Court took the view as above. It appears from the facts of that case that Gaya Charan who was admitted in the Hospital in injured condi- tion left the hospital on being discharged either on the injuries having been healed up or he left the hospital before they healed up. There was nothing on record to show in what circumstances he left the hospital and what was the cause of his death which occurred sometime thereafter. The Supreme Court observed at page 16 of the judgment that in absence of any evidence to show that Gaya Charan died on account of the injuries received by him it cannot be said that the statement made by him related to the cause of his death or any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and ulti- mately held that the dying declaration was not relevant under sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. In the present case it appears that Baliben was admitted in the hospital in injured condition on 23-10-1982 and she expired in the hospital on 7-11-1982 i. e. about a fortnight after the incident. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. In the present case it appears that Baliben was admitted in the hospital in injured condition on 23-10-1982 and she expired in the hospital on 7-11-1982 i. e. about a fortnight after the incident. It is clear from the evidence of the Medical Officer that Baliben did not die of the injuries sustained by her. The cause of death as stated in the post mortem notes is septicaemia and shock resulting therefrom. The Medical Officer has stated that Baliben had developed bed-sores on her back on account of having remained in the bed constantly for a long time. The Medical Officer Dr. Modi Ex. 8 has stated that on internal examination he found that there was pus in both the lungs and the cause of death was pus having circulated in the blood which caused shock resulting in death. He has further stated that the main cause of death was pus formation in the blood. The evidence of Dr. Modi does not show that the pus formation was on account of the bed-sores which Baliben had developed. The evidence of the Medical Officer does not even show that the pus formation was on account of bed-sores which Baliben had developed or that there was pus formation at the site of the injuries sustained by Baliben. In absence of any such medical evidence to connect the pus formation with the injuries sustained by Baliben or to the bed-sores which she developed on account of being bed-ridden in the hospital for a long time it is difficult to say that the statements made by Baliben are relevant under sec. 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The result is that all these statements alleged to have been made by Baliben that Madha Bhana had given her knife blows have to be kept out of consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment we would like to observe here that while recording the evidence of the witnesses particularly with reference to omissions/contradictions with regard to police state ments complex sentences have been used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment we would like to observe here that while recording the evidence of the witnesses particularly with reference to omissions/contradictions with regard to police state ments complex sentences have been used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In view of this we had to look into the police statements to ascertain as to what was stated by the witness before police and what was omitted. This could have been avoided if the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge had recorded this part of the evidence in simple sentences in separate paragraphs. Such omissions and/or contradictions should be recorded in simple sentences and they should be very specific and clear so as to give a clear idea as to what is stated by the witness before police and what is not stated by him before Police. For example at para 11 of the deposition of Dahyabhai Bhagwanbhai Ex. 13 it is recorded as follows: now the wordscreate an impression that the witness admitted that the incident has not taken place in the above manner while it is the positive case of the witness in his deposition before the Court that the incident took place in the above manner though of course he did not state as above before police as proved by the evidence of the Police Officer. It appears from the trend of cross- examination that the suggestion by the defence was that the incident had not taken place as per the say of the witness which is reproduced above in Gujarati and the further suggestion was that a statement was not made by the witness before police. First the suggestion that the incident had not taken place in the above manner should have been recorded in the following words:then so far as omission/contradiction is concerned it should have been recorded as follows: Thereafter reproducing the portion of the statement before police which is reproduced earlier. First the suggestion that the incident had not taken place in the above manner should have been recorded in the following words:then so far as omission/contradiction is concerned it should have been recorded as follows: Thereafter reproducing the portion of the statement before police which is reproduced earlier. This will give a clear idea that the suggestion of the defence was that the incident had not taken place in the above manner and that the further suggestion of the defence was that such a statement was not made before police by the witness it is further recorded at para 14 of the deposition of this witness as follows: It appears from the trend of cross-examination that the suggestion of the defence was that the incident too place in the manner stated above in Gujarati and that the witness had made such a statement before police. The first part of the evidence should have been recorded in the following words: The further recording should have been as follows: Thereafter it should have been recorded as follows: thereafter reproducing the Gujarati version of the police statement reproduced above. It should also have been then recorded in specific words as follows; If the omissions and contradictions are recorded in the manner stated above it will give a clear idea as to what was the suggestion of the defence. It would give a clear idea whether the suggestion of the defence was that the witness had omitted to state a particular fact of whether a witness had made a particular positive statement contradicting his own evidence before the Court. The way in which the learned Additional sessions Judge recorded the evidence at para 14 reproduced above does not give any such clear idea. Similar complex sentences have been recorded even in the depositions of other witnesses but it is not necessary to reiterate them. We would only like to observe that it is desirable that such omissions and/or contradictions and suggestions by the defence in cross-examination are recorded in clear simple and short sentences instead of complex sentences giving a clear idea as to what is the suggestion of the defence in cross-examination. We would only like to observe that it is desirable that such omissions and/or contradictions and suggestions by the defence in cross-examination are recorded in clear simple and short sentences instead of complex sentences giving a clear idea as to what is the suggestion of the defence in cross-examination. It is desi- rable that the evidence in this regard is recorded in the form of questions and answers because that will give a clear idea as to what was the suggestion in cross-examination and what was the answer given by the witness. Order accordingly. .