Dying Declaration

“Dying Declaration” means a statement, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead. It is the statement of a person who had died explaining the circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his/her death. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that the statements, which are written or verbal, of relevant facts when made by a person who is dead, cannot be found, incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without any relevant delay or expense are relevant facts if:

• It relates to the cause of death, or,

• Made in course of business, or,

• Against interest of maker, or,

• Gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interest, or,

• Relates to existence of relationship, or,

• Made in will or deed relation to family affairs, or,

• Document relating to transaction as specified in section 13, or,

• Made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to matter in question

Legal Maxim on which Dying Declaration is based is Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire ‘A man will not meet his maker (God) with a lie in his mouth’ or in other words ‘No man at the point of death is presumed to lie.’ It is assumed that whatever a person writes in his dying declaration is never false.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DYING DECLARATION

Supreme Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1992 SC 1817): The appellant challenged her conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murdering her daughter-in-law by pouring kerosene on her and lighting the kerosene. The conviction was based largely on three dying declarations made by the daughter-in-law to her father and to the police. The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction, concluding that there was no reason to discard the dying declarations as false. It responded to the argument that it should act leniently with respect to the appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment with the following language: “It would be a travesty of justice if sympathy is shown when a cruel act like bride burning is committed. “It is rather strange that the mother-in-law who herself is a woman should resort to killing another woman.” It is hard to fathom as why even the ‘mother’ in her did not make her feel … The language [of] deterrence must speak in that it may be a conscious reminder to the society. Undue sympathy would be harmful to the cause of justice.”

1. There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [Munnu Raja & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 2 SCR 764)]

2. If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. [State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 416) and Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 164)]

3. The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. [K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor (AIR 1976 SC1994)]

4. Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. [Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974 (4) SCC264)]

5. Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [Kaka Singh v State of M.P. (AIR 1982 SC 1021)]

6. A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [Ram Manorath and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1981 (2) SCC 654)

7. Merely because a dying declaration does contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. [State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu (AIR 1981 SC 617)]

8. Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. [Surajdeo Oza and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1505).

9. Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. [Nanahau Ram and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 912)].

10. Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1519)].

11. Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. [Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 839)].