DYING DECLARATION
Dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person as to the
cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in his death. The term dying declaration has not been
defined in the evidence act, but reading section 32 and subsection 1 of
section 32, the term dying declaration may be defined as followed.
“a dying declaration is statement made by a person who is dead; as to
causes of his death or as to any circumstances of transaction, which
resulted in his death, in cases in which his death comes into question,
such statements are relevant under section 32 of evidence act, whether
the person who made there was or was not, at the time when they were
made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of
proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.” (Ram
Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1988)
Before dying declaration can be admitted in evidence, it must be proved
that
A) Such statement is made by a person since deceased, as to the
cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction, which resulted in his death; and
B) The cause of that person’s death is in question.
In the recent case of Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1970 it was laid
down that provisions of section 32(1) of evidence act are both relevant
and outside the prohibition contained in section 162(1) of Cr.PC.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATIONS UNDER THE
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Dying declarations are significant in criminal cases as they are considered
credible evidence when a person declares their account of events leading
to their death. Under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
statements made by a person who believes death is imminent are
admissible. Below are the essential requirements for admissibility of dying
declarations:
1. Statement Relating to Cause of Death
The dying declaration must pertain to the cause of death or
circumstances of the transaction leading to the declarant's death.
Case Law: R v. Woodcock (1789) – A dying declaration was
admitted since it directly related to the cause of death.
2. Declarant Must Have Died
The admissibility arises only if the declarant has died. If the person
survives, the statement may not qualify as a dying declaration but
can be used as a regular statement.
Case Law: Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) – The Supreme
Court emphasized that the declaration is admissible only upon the
death of the declarant.
3. Belief in Imminent Death
The declarant must have made the statement under the firm belief
that death was certain and imminent.
Case Law: Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) – The Privy
Council held that a dying declaration need not be made under an
absolute expectation of immediate death but must be related to the
cause of death.
4. Competency of the Declarant
The declarant must be mentally competent and conscious at the
time of making the statement.
Case Law: Panchdeo Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) – The court
rejected a dying declaration where the declarant was under
medication and not fully conscious.
5. Voluntary and Free from Influence
The statement must be made voluntarily without any duress,
coercion, or undue influence.
Case Law: Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) – A dying
declaration influenced by external factors was considered
inadmissible.
6. Form of Dying Declaration
A dying declaration can be oral, written, or through gestures or
signs. There is no prescribed form.
Case Law: Queen Empress v. Abdullah (1885) – Even gestures
made by a dying person were admitted as a valid dying declaration.
7. Recording Authority
Ideally, a magistrate should record the dying declaration. However,
if unavailable, it can still be recorded by any reliable person,
provided it is genuine.
Case Law: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) – The Supreme
Court upheld that a declaration not recorded by a magistrate could
still be admissible if free of doubt.
8. Corroboration Not Mandatory
A dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if it is
found reliable and trustworthy.
Case Law: Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1962) – The court
convicted the accused based solely on an uncorroborated dying
declaration.
9. Language and Clarity
The declaration must be clear and unambiguous, conveying the
circumstances of the event comprehensibly.
Case Law: Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) – The dying
declaration was rejected due to lack of clarity and coherence.
1. ) 9 SCC 1]
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DYING DECLARATION
Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire
It is based on a principle named ‘nemo moriturus praesumitur
mentire’ which simply means that when a person is on death bed there
are fewer chances that he would lie. The Apex Court in its decision in
P.V.Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka [Appeal (crl.) 1018 of
2002] held that ‘the principle on which a dying declaration is admitted in
evidence is indicated a Latin maxim, nemo moriturus praesumitur
mentire, a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
Information lodged by a person who died subsequently relating to the
cause of his death is admissible in evidence under this clause.
Dying declaration is also considered the trustworthy evidence because it
is believed that if a person knows that he is about to die he will not lie.
That’s why it is admissible in evidence being hearsay evidence. This
piece of hearsay evidence is admissible as an exception to the
general rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is no evidence in
the eye of law and it should be discarded as a general rule
because the evidence in all cases must be direct.
Principles governing dying declaration: There is no format prescribed
for recording a dying declaration. Indeed, no such format can be
prescribed. The courts have laid down in several judgments the principles
governing dying declaration, which can be summed up as under:
1. There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration
cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [Mannu Raja v. State
of M.P. (1976) 2 SCR 764]
2. If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and
voluntary, it can base the conviction on it, without corroboration.
[State of UP v. Ram Sagar Yadav, AIR 1985 SC 416]
3. The court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must
ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting
or imagination. The deceased had the opportunity to observe and
identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.
[Rama Chandran Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC
1994]
4. Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon
without corroborative evidence. [Rasheed Beg v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 264]
5. Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires
the full confidence of the court. [Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) ,
(20100
