A stated to his wife that he would get her jewels and that he had gone to the house of B the deceased, to get them…Give reasons.

Question: A stated to his wife that he would get her jewels and that he had gone to the house of B the deceased, to get them. A was later put on trial for the murder of B. Will the aforesaid statement made by the husband to wife be admissible in evidence against him? Give reasons. [U.P.H.J.S. 1978]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A stated to his wife that he would get her jewels and that he had gone to the house of B the deceased, to get them. A was later put on trial for the murder of B. Will the aforesaid statement made by the husband to wife be admissible in evidence against him? Give reasons.]

Answer

Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about the admissibility of Communications during the marriage.

It states: “No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.”

The protection is not confined to cases where the communication sought to be given in evidence is of a strictly confidential character, but the seal of the law is placed upon all communications of whatever nature which pass between husband and wife. The ban of the section is confined to communications only. A wife can testify to the deeds of her husband of which she was the eyewitness. This is so because section 120 declares her to be a competent witness against her husband.

In Ram Bharose v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 704] the wife’s statement was that on the early hours of the day of the murder, while it was still dark she saw her husband coming down from the roof of his house and then going to Bhusa Kothari and coming again and having a naked bath and thereafter wore the same clothes. She also stated that her husband presented her ornaments.

Thereupon, she asked as to the place from where he got them. He told that he had gone to a house to get the ornaments. It was the house where the deceased lived. Justice Venkataramma Iyyer held that the wife could testify the conduct of the husband but not what he said to her.

The reason being that section 122 only prohibits the wife or the husband from disclosing the communication between them. It does not prohibit communication to be proved by some other means.

In the present case at hand, as the facts suggest, A merely stated to his wife that he would get her jewels and that he had gone to the house of B the deceased, to get them.

Later, when A was put on trial for the murder of B, the aforesaid statement made by the husband to wife shall not be held admissible as per section 122 of the act; however, the conduct of the husband that he stated and had gone to the house of deceased B can be made admissible verifying the fact that A had actually gone to B’s house.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X