Rex v Kasanga (Cr. App. No. 77 of 1938.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A dying declaration under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act is only admissible in cases where the cause of the declarant's own death comes into question. Statements by Bushiri about shooting the deceased were inadmissible in a prosecution for that deceased's murder because Bushiri's death was not the subject of the charge. The conviction was quashed and the appellant acquitted.
Outcome
Appellant acquitted and released
Facts
The appellant was convicted of murdering Swedi bin Jarafu. At trial, evidence was admitted of statements made by one Bushiri before his death. Bushiri allegedly stated that at the instigation of his brother the appellant, he had attempted to shoot Ali bin Pondamali but mistakenly shot the deceased Swedi bin Jarafu instead. The prosecution relied on these statements as the nexus connecting the appellant to the murder. The appellant appealed on the ground that Bushiri's statements were inadmissible hearsay.
Issues
- Whether statements made by Bushiri before his death were admissible as dying declarations under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act in a prosecution for the murder of a different person.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Appellant acquitted.
- Release of appellant directed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Indian Evidence Act s.32(1)
Cases cited (1)
- Archbold (29th Ed. p. 379)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.