Explanation:

The correct answer is Option (3): 'admissible against husband.' Under Indian law, specifically the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is no general rule that prevents a spouse from testifying against the other spouse in criminal proceedings. Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the general rule regarding who may testify, stating that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions or giving rational answers due to certain conditions (like tender years, extreme old age, disease, etc.). Spouses are not listed among these exceptions. Therefore, a wife is a competent witness against her husband in a criminal trial, and her evidence is admissible. This principle is a departure from historical common law rules in some other jurisdictions that considered spouses incompetent to testify against each other. Let's analyze the other options: Option (0) 'admissible only when given with the permission of the court.': This statement is incorrect. The Indian Evidence Act does not require the court's permission for a spouse to testify against the other spouse in a criminal case. Competency to testify is presumed unless specifically disqualified under Section 118. The court's role is to assess competency, not to grant permission for an otherwise competent witness to testify. Option (1) 'not admissible against husband.': This statement is fundamentally incorrect under Indian law. As explained, the Indian Evidence Act does not create a general bar against spousal testimony in criminal matters. While Section 122 of the Act provides a privilege for 'communications during marriage' (meaning a spouse cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications made to them by their spouse during marriage), this privilege does not extend to observations of a crime. 'A' witnessing her husband commit murder is an observation of a fact, not a confidential communication, and therefore, her testimony about the murder is admissible. Option (2) 'admissible against husband only when given with the consent of husband.': This statement is also incorrect. The admissibility of a spouse's testimony in a criminal case against the other spouse does not depend on the consent of the accused spouse. Such a requirement would effectively allow the accused to silence a crucial witness, which would be contrary to the principles of justice and fair trial. The law prioritizes the discovery of truth and the administration of justice over such a spousal veto.