https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197191 Oral evidence repeating a deceased person's complaints of cruelty and harassment was held inadmissible where the death was accidental and not homicidal or suicidal. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act applies only to statements having a proximate and organic connection with the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, so remote allegations of past ill-treatment do not qualify. Section 6 also did not apply because the statements were not part of the same transaction or substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence. The evidence could not be used to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC. en-us Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:43:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197191 Oral evidence repeating a deceased person's complaints of cruelty and harassment was held inadmissible where the death was accidental and not homicidal or suicidal. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act applies only to statements having a proximate and organic connection with the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, so remote allegations of past ill-treatment do not qualify. Section 6 also did not apply because the statements were not part of the same transaction or substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence. The evidence could not be used to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197191