On March 23, 1937, the dismembered body of Kurree Nukaraju was found in a steel trunk at the Puri railway station. The trunk had been left unclaimed, and the gruesome discovery led to a murder investigation. Pakala Narayana Swami was accused of the murder. During the investigation, he made a statement to the police which he later contested. The statement involved his account of the deceased’s visit to his house and subsequent departure. The police also found that a trunk, which was delivered to the accused’s house, was later found to contain the deceased's body. The Sessions Judge in Berhampur convicted Pakala Narayana Swami of murder and sentenced him to death. The High Court of Patna affirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Privy Council.

• 1. Whether the statement made by the accused to the police could be considered a confession. 2. Whether the deceased’s statement to his wife about his intended travel to Berhampur, purportedly to collect dues, qualifies as a dying declaration.

• 1. On the Accused’s Statement: The Privy Council reviewed the nature of the statement made by the accused. It observed that the statement was a combination of a confession and an attempt to explain his innocence. The Court noted that a confession must either explicitly admit the offence or substantially admit all the elements constituting the offence. A mere admission of some incriminating facts, without a full admission, cannot be considered a confession.
• 2. On the Deceased’s Statement: The Privy Council considered the admissibility of the deceased’s statement to his wife regarding his travel plans. This was deemed a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, as it related to the circumstances of his death.

The Privy Council found that the statement made by Pakala Narayana Swami to the police was improperly admitted as evidence, as it was obtained before his arrest and was therefore in violation of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it was determined that other evidence sufficiently established the deceased’s presence at the accused’s house, thereby supporting the prosecution’s case.

Despite rejecting the improperly admitted statement, the Privy Council concluded that the remaining evidence was adequate to sustain the conviction. The statement made by the deceased about his visit and interactions with the accused’s family was rightly admitted as it provided context to the crime. The Privy Council’s decision effectively affirmed the conviction, maintaining the judgment of the lower courts.