how do I link this to the question In the case of Subramanian v Public prosecutor [1956] who established the principal that a statement is only hearsay if it is being abducted to prove the truth of the facts it asserts, not the mere fact that they were made. In this case the accused faced a capital charge of carrying ammunition but would have a legal defence if he can prove that he was compelled to do so by threats. He testified he has been forced to live with armed terrorist with coeced him into carrying the ammunition and attempted to give evidence of what the terrorists said but the trial judge took the view that "all the conversations with bandits is not admissible" unless they are called as it would be hearsay