Under Section 32(3) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in a property dispute case, a written letter from Mr. X (now deceased) to his brother states: "I have illegally encroached upon the 2 acres of land belonging to Y and profited considerably from cultivation. I am deeply remorseful and acknowledge this debt to Y, which I cannot repay." The letter was written in 1995, before the current property dispute arose in 2024. Y now seeks to introduce this letter in court to establish X's prior ownership interest claim was unfounded. Which of the following correctly applies Section 32(3)

Explanation: Section 32(3) of the BSA, 2023 provides: "When the statement relates to the existence of any right, custom or matter of a public or general interest, or to any public right or custom as to which the declarant's knowledge was derived from his connection to the matter by which that right or custom is defined, or if made ante litem motam, is admissible." More critically, the doctrine established under Section 32 (corresponding to IEA Section 32) is that statements against the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest are admissible as exceptions to hearsay because: (i) no person is likely to make a statement prejudicial to his own interest unless it is true; (ii) the statement was made before the controversy arose (antelitem motam); (iii) the declarant cannot subsequently be cross-examined. In X's case: (i) the letter explicitly admits illegal encroachment and unpaid debt—clearly against X's pecuniary interest; (ii) the letter was written in 1995, decades before the 2024 dispute arose (satisfying ante litem motam condition); (iii) X's death prevents subsequent cross-examination. The Supreme Court in Sm. Savitri Devi v. Ram Ran Bijoy (AIR 1950 PC 1) held that "the principle upon which hearsay evidence is admitted under Section 32(3) is that a man is not likely to make a statement against his own interest unless true." The statement's moral dimension (remorse) does not negate pecuniary interest admissibility; rather, it reinforces credibility. The letter's content is admissible without requiring separate handwriting authentication—authentication goes to weight, not admissibility. Thus, option (B) correctly applies Section 32(3).