Explanation:

This question involves the admissibility of a statement made by a deceased person, which immediately points towards Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The specific nature of the statement – that the deceased Pandit performed a marriage under criminal circumstances – is crucial for determining its relevance under this section. Let's break down the analysis: 1. **The Fact in Issue:** The core question is whether A and B were legally married. The Pandit's statement directly relates to the performance of the marriage ceremony. 2. **The Maker of the Statement:** The statement is made by a 'deceased Pandit'. Since the person who made the statement is dead, they cannot be called as a witness. This is the primary condition for invoking Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Now, let's examine the options and the relevant sub-sections of Section 32: * **Option (1) is relevant under Section 50 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:** Section 50 deals with 'Opinion as to relationship, when relevant'. It states that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject, is relevant. While the question concerns a marriage (a relationship), the Pandit's statement is not an 'opinion expressed by conduct' about the *existence* of a relationship. Instead, it is a direct statement of fact about his *action* (performing the marriage) and the *circumstances* of that action. Therefore, Section 50 is not the most appropriate section for its admissibility. * **Option (2) is not relevant:** This option is incorrect. The Pandit's statement is highly relevant to the fact in issue (whether A and B were married) as he was the person who allegedly performed the ceremony. The question is about its *admissibility* despite the maker being deceased, not its relevance in principle. * **Option (3) is relevant under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:** This is the correct answer. Specifically, the statement falls under **Section 32(3)**. Section 32(3) makes relevant a statement made by a person who is dead (or cannot be found, etc.) when the statement is 'against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages.' In this scenario, the Pandit's statement that 'he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime' is a statement that, if true, would expose him to criminal prosecution. Therefore, it is a statement against his penal interest and is admissible under Section 32(3). The fact that it is against his interest lends it a high degree of credibility, making it an exception to the hearsay rule. * **Option (4) is relevant under Section 08 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:** Section 8 deals with 'Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct'. While the circumstances of the marriage might involve motive or conduct, Section 8 primarily focuses on the relevancy of *facts* that show motive, preparation, or conduct. It does not govern the admissibility of a *statement* by a deceased person about a fact, especially when that statement is against the maker's interest. The admissibility of such a statement is specifically covered by Section 32. Therefore, this option is incorrect. In conclusion, the statement of the deceased Pandit is relevant and admissible under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because it is a statement against his penal interest.