Dying Declaration Principle

1
Dying Declaration
Principle
 Exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible.
 Special circumstances.
 Sec. 32 – cause of death or circumstances pertaining to the cause of
death.
 Sec. 33 – a person who is dead or cannot be found.
 Suicide note falls u/s. 32(1).
 Presumed to be true as such declarations are made in extremity.
Principles governing dying declarations

In the case of Panniben v. State of M.P. the following principles were culled
out by the Supreme Court with respect to Dying Declaration:
 Can lead to conviction without corroboration.
 True, voluntary and trustworthy.
 Not the result of prompting, imagination or tutoring.
 Suspicious Dying Declaration shall be supported by corroborative
evidence.
 Dying Declaration suffering from infirmity cannot form sole basis of
conviction.
 Not necessary to have the entire detail of the incident.
 Brief statement may not be discredited.
 Eye witness will outweigh the medical opinion about the fit state of mind
of the deceased.
 Prosecution version must be consistent with the dying declaration.
 In case of plurality of dying declarations, the first in point of time must
be preferred. Although both may be considered as well.
Language of the Dying Declaration

 Preferably exact words.
 Two dying declaration – Two different languages.
 Question – answer form.
 May be recorded in different language also.
 Statement recorded in the words of the maker is the best dying
declaration.
Plurality of Dying Declaration

 More than one dying declaration, should be read as one.
 The Court shall look out for inconsistencies in the string of dying
declaration and accordingly rely upon them.
 Quality not the Quantity matters.
 Nature of inconsistencies, whether material or not.
 The Courts generally lean towards the first dying declaration than the
second one.
 Consistency in the successive dying declarations.
Whether part of Dying Declaration can be used

 If part of the statement in dying declaration is not proved, it would not
discredit the other part, merely on that ground
 Provided, the remaining part is corroborated by the evidence.
 If part of the dying declaration is not proved, it must not lead to rejection
of the whole dying declaration.
Tutored Dying Declaration

 The mere presence of the relatives/parents of the deceased at the time of
recording the statement does not always mean that the statement would
have been tutored.
2
 Subsequent dying declaration found to be a improvement version of the

first one, and that in the presence of the parents would lead an
inference towards tutoring.
Fitness of the Declarant
 Certificate from the doctor.
 Mere signature of the attending doctor does not make it admissible.
 Medical certificate not a sacrosanct condition.
 Burns and Sedatives not the sole deciding factor to reject a Dying
Declaration or to decide the state of mind.
 Must be proved by positive evidence.
 Consciousness and soundness of mind.
 Statement of the doctor or the person recording it.
Proximity between the death and making of the statement

 Close proximity is not an essential condition.
 Surrounding facts and circumstances shall be taken into regard.
 The gap between the death and making of the statement may run into
months.
 Circumstances shall have a close nexus with the cause of death.
 Time gap alone does not destroy the evidentiary value of the dying
declaration.
Procedure of recording Dying Declaration

 No strict procedure is provided for under the act.
 A statement recorded by the magistrate is deemed to be the most
authentic, hence preferable.
 Questions shall be asked if the deceased is in the fit state of mind.
 Signature/ Thumb impressions.
 Certification by the Scribe.
 Read over and explained to the declarant.
 IO is concerned with the success of the case, therefore a statement
recorded by an IO is not of much relevance as compared to the one
recorded by the Magistrate.
 Rule of corroboration must be followed, if it cannot be proved solely.
 *Contents of the dying declaration are the proof of the fact contained
therein and not the truth.
Corroboration
 A conviction based on uncorroborated dying declaration is legal.
 Corroboration is only required where the dying declaration is suspicious.
 True, reliable, without tutoring, voluntary, consistent.
 Circumstances to be considered by the Court in case corroboration is
required:
i. Opportunity of the dying person for observation.
ii. Capacity to remember facts.
iii. Made at earliest opportunity or not.
iv. Absence of any element of tutoring.
Sole basis of Conviction

 Not an absolute condition/rule that the dying declaration must
corroborate.
 Undisputable dying declaration can form sole basis of conviction.
 Basic condition/principles must be fulfilled.
 It solely, may lead to conviction of the person who caused death and the
conviction of the person who assisted or supported the main accused.
Proof of Dying Declaration

 Written or Oral.
 Proof by:
3
i. Doctor.
ii. Person who hears it.
iii. Magistrate/SDM.
iv. Scribe.
v. Eyewitness.
vi. Police Officer
Recording of Dying Declaration by different persons

 Magistrate
 Police Officer
 Duty Doctor
 Independent witness
Duty of the Scribe

 To show that the statement was recorded with bona fide intention and
without any pressure exerted on him by the maker of the statement.
 It is not an easy job to for an author/scribe to enter into the mind of the
maker/declarant.
Case Laws
 Sunil Kashinath Raimale v. State of Maharashtra

In a bride burning case the father of the deceased was found present
while the deceased was giving her statement, in one of the statement
given by the father it was evident that he had a grudge against the
accused-husband. Inn such case the possibility of tutoring could not be
ruled out.
 Somnath v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration are the groaning
utterances of the dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony, and it
cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which
witnesses may give in other situations.
 Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. (2017)

There cannot be an absolute rule that a person who has suffered 80%
burn injuries cannot give a dying declaration. Therefore, the accused was
convicted on basis of the dying declaration in the present case.
 State of Gujrat v. Jairaj Bhai Punjab Bhai Baru

The rule regarding corroboration of dying declaration is merely a rule of
prudence.
Once a Court is satisfied that a declaration was true & voluntary it can
base its conviction on that fact alone.
 Umma Kanta v. State of Chhattisgarh

On the issue of evidentiary value of a dying declaration. A dying
declaration does not need any corroboration as long as it inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court, is not outcome of tutoring.
 Ajay v. State of Maharashtra

The hands of the deceased – declarant were completely burnt, therefore
in absence of any other corroborative evidence, the dying declaration was
under a shadow of doubt and it was held not sufficient to convict the
accused.
 Mahavir & Ors. v. State of Haryana

The dying declaration was found to be full of infirmities, therefore in
absence of corroborating evidence, the accused was acquitted of the
charges.

Dying Declaration Principle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dying Declaration Principle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dying Declaration Principle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Principles governing dying declarations

Language of the Dying Declaration

Plurality of Dying Declaration

Whether part of Dying Declaration can be used

Tutored Dying Declaration

 Subsequent dying declaration found to be a improvement version of the

Proximity between the death and making of the statement

Procedure of recording Dying Declaration

Sole basis of Conviction

Proof of Dying Declaration

Recording of Dying Declaration by different persons

Duty of the Scribe

 Sunil Kashinath Raimale v. State of Maharashtra

 Somnath v. State of Haryana

 Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. (2017)

 State of Gujrat v. Jairaj Bhai Punjab Bhai Baru

 Umma Kanta v. State of Chhattisgarh

 Ajay v. State of Maharashtra

 Mahavir & Ors. v. State of Haryana

You might also like