The Historic Judgment of Privy Council m Pakala Narayan Swami vs. The King Emperor deals with:

Issues raised in case of PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI .v. EMPEROR (AIR 1939):     I.         Whether the statement of the accused can be considered as confession?   II.         Whether the statement of the deceased to his wife that he is going to Berhampur to take back his loan was considered as a dying declaration? This case clarifies the principles for identifying confession and a dying declaration. Confession The Privy Council expressed the opinion that the statement of the accused was partly confession and partly explanation for his innocence. The word confession can be construed from a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that he had committed the crime. A confession either admits in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially admits all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating facts even if a conclusively incriminating facts cannot be considered as a confession. A statement which contain self-explanatory matter cannot amount to confession. It must be either be taken as whole or rejected. Dying Declaration The question before the Privy Council was as to whether a statement made by the deceased to his wife before going to the Pakala Narayan Swamy, without the idea of impending death, would really come within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. In fact, it was held by the Privy Council that the statement made by the deceased to his wife just prior to leaving his house to go to Behrampur was a statement and one of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death of the man. Therefore the expression ‘any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death’ is necessarily wider in its interpretation than the expression ‘the cause of his death.’