Supreme Court Stresses Crucial Examination in Dying Declarations: Highlights Key Principles for Reliability

LI Network

Published on: November 08, 2023 at 17:40 IST

The Supreme Court has recently emphasized the significance of examining the person who records a dying declaration in a recent judgment.

The Court outlined the crucial considerations to be taken into account when determining the reliability of a dying declaration and reaffirmed the value of such declarations, even though it highlighted concerns in a particular case about their validity.

In this case, the Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, reviewed an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment.

The High Court had reversed the acquittal of the 6 appellants and convicted them under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

The case originated from a 1997 incident involving an alleged armed attack on the deceased and his brothers while they were working in the fields, resulting in an FIR being registered under various IPC sections.

The principles regarding dying declarations were laid out in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with statements made by a deceased or untraceable person, particularly dying declarations. The Court emphasized the following key principles:

1. The circumstances disclosed in the dying declaration must be closely related to the actual incident.
2. If a dying declaration is trustworthy, it can serve as the basis for conviction, even without corroborative evidence.
3. The court must ensure that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when making the declaration.
4. Witness statements indicating the deceased’s fit state of mind take precedence over medical evidence.
5. The absence of a doctor’s certificate regarding the declarant’s fit state of mind doesn’t render the dying declaration inadmissible.
6. In cases of multiple dying declarations, reliability, not plurality, determines their evidentiary value.
7. The presence of a magistrate is a rule of prudence, not a necessity.
8. A dying declaration should not be disregarded solely due to its brevity.
9. Examination of the person who recorded the dying declaration is essential.
10. If the original recorded dying declaration is lost or unavailable, the prosecution can provide secondary evidence.
11. A dying declaration must be free from tutoring, prompting, or imagination.

The Court reiterated the Latin maxim “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire,” which means that a person near death is presumed to speak the truth.

It emphasized that the circumstances disclosed in a dying declaration must be closely related to the actual incident, and it cited the Privy Council’s ruling to clarify the scope of “circumstances of the transaction.”

The Court noted that a dying declaration should not be discarded solely due to its brevity, emphasizing the principle that shorter statements can be more reliable. It also pointed out that the presence of a magistrate when recording a dying declaration is a matter of prudence, not a legal requirement.

The Court concluded that questions about the identity of the person who recorded the dying declaration, its accuracy, the identity of individuals present during its recording, and other factors were not certain in the case at hand, casting doubts on its authenticity. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court, which had acquitted the accused.

This ruling provides important guidance on the admissibility and evaluation of dying declarations in legal proceedings, ensuring a fair and just legal process.