DYING DECLARATION

By
Y. SRINIVASA RAO
M.A (English)., B.Ed., B.L., (LL.M),
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
BHIMAVARAM.

'' A person , who is about to ie , wou! not !ie''.
'' Truth sits on the !ips o" a person who is about to ie''
INTROD#CTION$
The maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire is
basis for ''dying declaration'', which means '' a man will not meet his
maker with a lie in his mouth''. A dying del!"!#i$n is !lled !s %% Le#e"&
M$"#e&%%. 'he ($"d %' Leterm Mortem'' &e!ns %' Words said before death'%.
Recording of dying declaration is very important task. Utmost care is to
be taken while recording a dying declaration. If a dying declaration is
recorded carefully by the proper person, keeping in mind the essential
ingredients of the dying declaration, such declaration retains its full value.
Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act.
A close scrutiny of section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, it is
vividly known when the statement is made by a person with regard to the
cause of his death, or any of the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that persons death
comes into question. Such statements are relevant irrespective of the
person who made such declaration was expecting death or not . Thus, it is
apt to say that admissibility of Dying declaration is explained in the
section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act.
%ow a &in' e(!aration shou! be)
)
'he"e is n$ *!"#i+l!" ,$"& $, dying del!"!#i$n. H$(e-e",
#he .est form of dying declaration is in the form of questions and
answers. However, whenever a dying declaration is being recorded in
the form of questions and answers precaution should be taken that exactly
what questions are asked and what answers are given by the patient those
should be written.
A dying del!"!#i$n &!y .e in #he ,$ll$(ing ,$"&s/
0. 1"i##en ,$"&2
). Ve".!l ,$"&2
3. Ges#+"es !nd 4igns ,$"&. In #he !se %%5+een -s A.d+ll!
0
%%, i# (!s
held #h!# i, #he in6+"ed *e"s$n is +n!.le #$ s*e!7, he !n &!7e
dying del!"!#i$n .y signs !nd ges#+"es in "es*$nse #$ #he 8+es#i$n.
4. If a person is not capable of speaking or writing he can make a
gesture in the form of yes or no by nodding and even such type of
dying declaration is valid.
5. It is preferred that it should be written in the vernacular which the
patient understands and speaks.
6. A dying declaration may be in the form of narrations. In case of a
dying declaration is recorded in the form of narrations, nothing is
being prompted and every thing is coming as such from the mind
of the person making it.
OBJEC'42
0. 'he *"es+&*#i$n is %% ! *e"s$n (h$ is !.$+# #$ die ($+ld n$# lie%%.
). I# is !ls$ s!id #h!# %% '"+#h si#s $n #he li*s $, ! *e"s$n (h$ is !.$+#
#$ die%%.
3. 'he -i#i& is e9l+si-e eye (i#ness !nd hene s+h e-idene
sh$+ld n$# .e e9l+ded.
0 ILR : 3;<
3
Who may record a dying declaration ?
1. It is best that it is recorded by the magistrate .
2. If there is no time to call the magistrate, keeping in view the
deteriorating condition of the declarant, it can be recorded by
anybody e.g. public servant like doctor or any other person.
3. It cannot be said that a dying declaration recorded by a police
officer is always invalid.
4. If any dying declaration is not recorded by the competent
Magistrate, it is better that signatures of the witnesses are taken
who are present at the time of recording it.
Important facts to be remembered before recording Dying
Declaration:
1. The declarant was in a fit condition of mind to give the statement
when recording was started and remained in fit condition of mind
until the recording of dying declaration is completed.
2. The fact of fit condition of mind of declarant can be best certified
by the doctor .
3. Yet, in case of where it was not possible to take fitness from the
doctor, dying declaration has retained its full sanctity if there are
other witnesses to testify that declarant was in fit condition of the
mind which did not prevent him from making dying declaration.
4. However, it should not be under the influence of any body or
prepared by prompting, tutoring or imagination. If any dying
declaration becomes suspicious, it will need corroboration.
5. If a declarant made more than one dying declarations and if these
are not at variance with each other in essence they retain their full
value. If these declarations are inconsistency or contradictory,
such dying declarations lose their value.
N$( i# is -e"y essen#i!l #$ 7n$( #he $ndi#i$ns ,$" !d&issi.ili#y !nd
e-iden#i!"y -!l+e $, ! dying del!"!#i$n. 'he #!.le gi-en in,"! s+in#ly
e9*l!ins #he s!&e/
CONDI'ION4 =OR ADMI44IBILI'> EVIDEN'IAR> VALUE
?
0. 'he del!"!n# ,(h$ g!-e dying
del!"!#i$n, sh$+ld h!-e died.
2. Admissibility of dying declaration is
explained in the section 32 (1) of
Indian Evidence Act.
3. When the statement is made by a
person as to the cause of his death, or
any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death,
in cases in which the cause of that
persons death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether
the person who made this was
expecting death or not. (See section 32
(1) of Indian Evidence Act).
?. 'he dying del!"!#i$n &+s# .e
$&*le#e
)
.
<. 'he !+se $, de!#h &+s# .e e9*l!ined
.y #he del!"!n# $" !#le!s# #he
i"+&s#!nes (hih "es+l#ed his@he"
de!#h &+s# .e e9*l!ined.
A. 'he del!"!n#, (h$ &!7es dying
del!"!#i$n, &+s# .e $nsi$+s !nd
$he"en#.
:. 'he del!"!n# &+s# .e s$+nd s#!#e in
&ind.
;. 'he !+se $, de!#h $, del!"!n# &+s#
.e in 8+es#i$n.
B. H$(e-e", #he del!"!n# need n$# .e
+nde" e9*e#!#i$n $, de!#h +nli7e
English L!(.
0C. 'he del!"!n# need n$# .e +nde"
sh!d$( $, de!#h.
3
00. 'he dying del!"!#i$n &!y .e in -e".!l
,$"&.
0. E-iden#i!"y -!l+e $, dying del!"!#i$n
(ill h!nge ,"$& !se #$ !se
!$"ding #$ ,!# !nd i"+&s#!nes $,
e!h !se.
). A dying del!"!#i$n &+s# .e "e$"ded
in e9!# ($"ds s*$7en .y #he del!"!n#.
3. I, ! $&*e#en# M!gis#"!#e "e$"ds !
dying del!"!#i$n in 8+es#i$n !nd
!ns(e" ,$"& , s+h dying del!"!#i$n
(ill h!-e &+h e-iden#i!"y -!l+e.
?. I, ! dying del!"!#i$n is "e$"ded N$
s$$ne" d$es #he in,$"&!#i$n "eei-e
#h!n #he dying del!"!#i$n is "e$"ded,
#+#$"ing .y in#e"es#ed *e"s$ns !n .e
!-$ided.
<. In !se &$"e #h!n $ne dying
del!"!#i$ns, !ll s+h del!"!#i$ns &+s#
.e iden#i!l.
A. In J!i D"!7!sh -s 4#!#e $, H!"y!n!
<
, i#
(!s $.se"-ed #h!# %% ! s#!#e&en# $,
-i#i& (hih (!s "e$"ded .y #he
*$lie $,,ie" in h$s*i#!l. L!#e", s+h
s#!#e&en# (!s #!7en #$ .e ! dying
del!"!#i$n.
:. In s$&e !ses, =.I.R (!s !ls$
$nside"ed !s ! dying del!"!#i$n.
;. In$nsis#en# dying del!"!#i$n is n$
e-iden#i!"y -!l+e. ( 4&# E!&l! -s
4#!#e $, D+n6!.
A
)
9. The dying declaration recorded by the
Clerk in the presence of Magistrate not
inadmissible. Scribe need not be
produced to prove it
7
.
0C. Des*i#e #he"e is ! dying del!"!#i$n,
C$+"# see7s ,+"#he" $""$.$"!#i$n.
However, Conviction can be based on
it without corroboration if it is true and
) >e#, i# (!s held #h!# %%Dying declaration incomplete as deceased not being able to answer
further, held could be relied upon. (AIR 1956 SC 168). %%
3 4#!#e $, H!"y!n! -s M!n!ge"!& F $#he"s (AIR )CC3 4C <<;)
<
0). 'he (h$le dying del!"!#i$n &+s# .e
#!7en in#$ $nside"!#i$n .y #he C$+"#
.+# n$# s$&e *$"#i$n $, i#.
03. 'he s#!#e&en# &!y .e &!de .e,$"e #he
!+se $, de!#h h!s !"isen, $" .e,$"e #he
dee!sed h!s !ny "e!s$n #$ !n#ii*!#e
.eing 7illed
?
.
14. Corroboration to dying declaration not
necessary. (1990 Crl.L.J 1129)
15. Exact words of deceased in dying
declaration need not be stated. (1990
Crl.L.J 2720)
16. It is immaterial that the person put a
thumb impression or signed a dyin
declaration if the declaration is duly
witnessed.
17. If a declarant, who is laying in the bed,
is unable to get up to sign due his
condition, or it is convenient for him to
put thumb impression, he can put
thumb impression.
18. There is usually no time limit that
dying declaration becomes invalid.
voluntary.
11. Replies by signs and gestures
constitute verbal statement resembling
the case of a dumb person and is
relevant and admissible in evidence.
(AIR 1949 Nag 405)
12. Dying declaration is an exception to
hearsay evidence because if this
evidence is not considered very
purpose of the justice will be forfeited
in certain situations when there may
not be any other witness to the crime
except the person who has since died.
13. Dying declaration is valid both in civil
and criminal cases whenever the cause
of death comes into question.
14. Dying declaration not attested by wife
or dactor present there. Smacks of
concoction. Inconsistency in oral and
medical evidence. Conviction cannot
be based on such evidence
8
.
15. It is perfectly permissible to reject a
part of dying declaration if it is found
to be untrue and if it can be separated
[ Nand Kumar v. state of Maharastra
9
.].
16. Declarant suddenly dying and his
thumb impression taken after his death
held dying declaration admissible in
evidence. (AIR 1962 SC 1252)
RELEVAN' CA4EGLA1 A4 'O %%D>ING DECLARA'ION%%/
? D!7!l! N!"!y!n! 4(!&i -s E&*e"$"
< (0BB;) : 4CC );?
A AIR 0BB3 4C 3:?.
: (52 Cr.L.J 883)
; AIR 1981 SC 1578.
B Cri LJ 1988 1313
A
1. Medical opinion cannot wipe out the direct testimony of the eyewitness
stating that the deceased was in fit and conscious state to make the dying
declaration . [ N Ram vs State
10
.]
2. If the person making it is imbecile or is of tender age and was
incompetent to testify due to this reason, that dying declaration would not
be valid [R v. Pike. C & P.1829; 3: 598]
3. As a measure of safety original dying declaration should be sent to the
court like FIR and its Photostat should be kept in the case file [State of
Karnataka v. Shivalingappa, 2001 (4) RCR(Criminal) 237 (Karnataka)
(DB)].
4. Even the ''History'' given by the injured recorded by the doctor in the
case file has been considered as dying declaration by the honorable Court
if it is mentioned that the patient told in the history that incident occurred
in such and such manner which was responsible for the death of the
victim [State of Karnataka v. Shariff
11
].
5. First information report got recorded by the police has been taken as
dying declaration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when the
person did not survive to get his dying declaration recorded [AIR 1976
2199 (SC)].
6. But, in the case State of Punjab v. Kikar Singh, 2002 (30 RCR
(Criminal) 568 (P & H) (DB), it was held that ''when patient remained
admitted in hospital for sufficient days i.e. for 8 days FIR cannot be
treated as dying declaration''.
7. In the case ''State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376
(Karnataka) (DB)'', it was held that ''A suicide note written found in the
0C AIR 1988 SC 912: 1988 Cri LJ 1485
00 2003 CAR 219-228, (SC)
:
clothes of the deceased it is in the nature of dying declaration and is
admissible in evidence under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act''.
8. In the case, (State of Gujarat v. Rabri Pancha Punja. Cri LJ.
1981;NOC: 171 (Guj) , it was held that '' It retains its full value if it can
justify that victim could identify the assailant, version narrated by victim
is intrinsically sound and accords with probabilities and any material
evidence is not proved wrong by any other reliable evidence''.
9. Dying declaration becomes unreliable if it is not as per prosecution
version. In the case of '' State of UP v. Madan Mohan, AIR 1989 SC 1519'' ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held:
1. It is for the court to see that dying declaration inspires full confidence
as the maker of the dying declaration is not available for cross-
examination
2. Court should satisfy that there was no possibility of tutoring or
prompting.
3. Certificate of the doctor should mention that victim was in a fit state of
mind. Magistrate recording his own satisfaction about the fit mental
condition of the declarant was not acceptable especially if the doctor was
available.
4. Dying declaration should be recorded by the executive magistrate and
police officer to record the dying declaration only if condition of the
deceased was so precarious that no other alternative was left.
5. Dying declaration may be in the form of questions and answers and
answers being written in the words of the person making the dying
declaration. But court cannot be too technical.
10. In Barati vs State Of U. P,1974 AIR 839, 1974 SCR (3) 570, it was
held that '''he"e (!s n$ "e!s$n #$ dis!"d #he dying del!"!#i$n &!de .y
#he !**ell!n# #$ #he *$lie s+.Gins*e#$", 'he #"i!l C$+"# (!s ("$ng in
"e6e#ing #he dying del!"!#i$n #$ #he *$lie (=.I.R.) $n #he g"$+nd #h!# #he
dee!sed h!d s#!#ed #$ #he d$#$" #h!# he h!d .e$&e +n$nsi$+s !,#e"
#he $+""ene. 'he"e (!s n$#hing in #he s#!#e&en# "e$"ded .y #he d$#$"
#$ indi!#e #h!# #he dee!sed "e&!ined +n$nsi$+s ,$". ! l$ng #i&e !nd !s
;
s+h (!s n$# in *$si#i$n #$ l$dge #he =.I.R. 'he ,!# #h!# #he l!ng+!ge
+sed in #he dying del!"!#i$n &!de #$ #he d$#$" (!s "!#he" h!s#e ($+ld
n$# g$ #$ sh$( #h!# #he s!id s#!#e&en# $+ld n$# h!-e .een &!de .y #he
dee!sed. As #$ #he l!ng+!ge +sed in #he dying del!"!#i$n #he"e is
n$#hing !.n$"&!l $" +n+s+!l in #he s!&e *e"s$n +sing $ll$8+i!l
l!ng+!ge (hile #!l7ing #$ $ne *e"s$n !nd +sing "e,ined l!ng+!ge (hile
#!l7ing #$ !n$#he" *e"s$n. %%
11. Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor ((1939) 41 BOMLR 428; AIR
1939 PC 47 ) on 19/1/1939 , In this case, the statement of Pakala
Narayana Swamy's wife '' he is going to Berhampur to get back his
amount'' was considered as ''DYING DECLARATION''.
Some important case-law on ''Dying declaration'':
0. A+#!" 4ingh -. 'he C"$(n, AIR 0B)? L!h )<3
). D!7!l! N!"!y!n! 4(!&i - E&*e"$", AIR 0B3B DC ?:
3. H!n+&!n# -. 4#!#e $, M!dhy! D"!desh , 0B<3C"iLJ0)B
?. 4#!#e -. E!nh!n 4ingh, AIR 0B<? All 0<3
<. R!#!n G$nd -. 4#!#e $, Bih!" , 0B<BC"iLJ0C;
A. Alli6!n M+nshi -. 4#!#e $, M!h!"!sh#"!, (0B<B) A0 BOMLR 0A)C
:. R!6ind"! E+&!" -. 4#!#e $, D+n6!., 0BAC C"i LJ ;<0 (DFH)
8. Harbans singh v state of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439
9. Shiv Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1966 Cri AR 281,
0C. L!ll+.h!i -. 4#!#e $, G+6!"!#, AIR 0B:) 4C 0::A
00. On7!" -. 4#!#e $, M!dhy! D"!desh, 0B:? C"iLJ 0)CC (MD)
12. Barati vs State Of U. P,1974 AIR 839
13. Munnu Raja and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2199
14. State of Gujarat v. Rabri Pancha Punja. Cri LJ. 1981;NOC: 171 (Guj)
0<. M!n$h!" L!l -. 4#!#e $, D+n6!. , 0B;0 C"iLJ (4C) 03:3
0A. 4#!#e $, D+n6!. -. 4!-i#"i De-i, 0B;3 ()) C"i&es <?:
0:. 4h!"!d Bi"dhih!nd 4!"d! -. 4#!#e $, M!h!"!sh#"! , 0B;?C"iLJ0:3;
0;. 4#!#e $, UD - R!& 4!g!" >!d-, AIR 0B;< 4C ?0A
B
0B. 4#!#e (Delhi Ad&inis#"!#i$n) -. L!9&!n E+&!" !nd O"s, AIR 0B;A 4C )<C
)C. 4#!#e $, Ass!& - M!hi& B!"!7!#!7i, AIR 0B;: 4C B;
)0. 4#!#e $, UD -. M!d!n M$h!n. AIR 0B;B 4C 0<0B
)). Ch!"i*!lly sh!7!!"!"!$ - D+.li *"$se+#$" HC $, AD AIR 0BB< 4C :::
23. State of Rajasthan v kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035
)?. 4&#. D!ni.en - s#!#e $, G+6!"!#, 0BB) ()) 4CJ <CB
)<. 4#!#e $, HD - He& R!6, 0BB) 4LC 0<; D 0AB (HD)
)A. J!gg! 4ingh -. 4#!#e $, D+n6!., AIR0BB< 4C 03<
):. N!66!& =!"!ghi in !li!s Ni66!& =!"+8+i -. 4#!#e $, 1es# Beng!l 0BBAC"iLJ;AA
);. G.4. 1!li! -. 4#!#e $, D+n6!. 0BB; C"iLJ (4C) )<)?
)B. 4hy!& 4ingh H!d! - 4#!#e $, R!6!s#h!n, )CCC C"i LJ 0?3: (R!6)
3C. 4+dh!7!" F An" -. 4#!#e $, M!h!"!sh#"!, AIR )CCC 4C )AC)
30. R$n!l Ei*"$n$ R!&7!# - 4#!#e $, H!"y!n! , AIR )CC0 4C )?;;
32. State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376 (Karnataka) (DB)
33. 4#!#e $, D+n6!. -. Ei7!" 4ingh, )CC) (3C RCR(C"i&in!l) <A; (D F H) (DB)
3?. 4!n#$sh E+&!" - 4#!#e $, U.D., )CC) C"iLJ (4C) 3C0
3<. 4#!#e -. M!"eg$(d!, )CC) (0) RCR (C"i&in!l)3:A (E!"n!#!7!) (DB)
3A. L!9&!n -. 4#!#e $, M!h"!sh#"!, )CC) C"i L J ?CB<, ()CC)) A 4CC :0C
3:. 4h!&.h+ - 4#!#e $, M!dhy! D"!desh, AIR )CC) 4C 03C:
3;. D V R!dh! E"ishn! -. s#!#e $, E!"n!#7!, AIR )CC3 4C );<B
39. Narain Singh v. State of Harayana , AIR 2004 SC 1616
?C. Vi"!&6i M$h!#6i 'h!7$"e -. 4#!#e $, G+6!"!#, )CC< ()) GLR 0A))
?0. Dil B!h!d+" '!&!g -. 4#!#e $, si77i&, )CC< C"LJ :;A * :B;
42. Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272
43. Viramji Mohatji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLR 1622
??. Ni"&!l L$+si -. 4#!#e $, B!n!s(!di *$lie, B!ng!l$"e, )CC< (0) E!" L J )03
?<. 4#!#e $, D+n6!. -. Ch!#inde" D!l 4ingh !nd O"s, AIR )CCB 4C B:?
CONCLUSION:
With propound sense of regret, I crave the indulgence of the officials and
others concerned , who record dying declaration, it is suggested that
0C
whenever dying declaration is to be recorded, it must be recorded very
carefully keeping in mind the sanctity which the court of law attaches to
the dying declaration.
---x---