Case Law On Dying Declarations
What is a Dying Declaration?
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death. It is considered an exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible as evidence in criminal trials.
Legal Basis:
In Indian Evidence Act, Section 32(1), a dying declaration is admissible as evidence because it is believed that a person on the verge of death will not lie.
It is applicable only in cases of homicide or murder.
The declarant must have a settled hopeless expectation of death.
The declaration can be oral or written.
Importance:
It provides crucial evidence when the victim cannot testify in court.
It helps establish facts related to the accused, manner, and cause of death.
Key Principles of Dying Declarations:
Must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances surrounding it.
No specific format is necessary; the truthfulness is judged based on circumstances.
The declarant should be sane and conscious while making the statement.
Courts evaluate credibility, consistency, and timing of the declaration.
Landmark Cases on Dying Declarations
1. Babu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1955 SC 549)
Facts:
The victim was attacked and made a dying declaration identifying the assailant. The accused challenged the validity of the declaration, claiming the victim was unconscious or not in the right state of mind.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration is to be taken with utmost care but must be considered as a whole, including the circumstances under which it was made.
The court said that any minor discrepancies or errors in the declaration do not necessarily discredit the entire statement.
The court reaffirmed that a dying declaration, if voluntary and consistent, can be the basis for conviction.
Significance:
Established that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate dying declarations.
Laid down the principle of evaluating the declaration holistically.
2. Hari Ram v. State of Haryana (1984 SCR (2) 112)
Facts:
The victim gave a dying declaration naming the accused, but the accused argued that the victim was heavily medicated and hence the declaration was not reliable.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration is admissible even if the victim is weak or under medication, provided it was made voluntarily and was understood by the victim.
Medical treatment or condition does not make a dying declaration inadmissible unless it causes loss of consciousness or understanding.
Significance:
Confirmed that medical condition alone is not enough to discredit a dying declaration.
Emphasized voluntariness and understanding as crucial elements.
3. R. v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC 241
Facts:
This English case involved a dying declaration made by a victim before death, which implicated the accused in murder.
Court’s Observations:
The court held that the dying declaration is admissible even if the declarant dies before trial.
The statement must relate to the cause or circumstances of death.
The judge instructed the jury to carefully consider the credibility and circumstances of the declaration.
Significance:
Established early common law principles on dying declarations.
Emphasized the trustworthiness of dying declarations.
4. Kishan v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1962 SC 1441)
Facts:
The victim gave multiple dying declarations with slight differences regarding the assailant’s identity.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court ruled that minor variations in different dying declarations are acceptable.
The overall consistency of the declarations must be considered.
The court emphasized that contradictions must be understood in the context of trauma and distress.
Significance:
Clarified the law on multiple dying declarations.
Helped in understanding that perfect consistency is not necessary.
5. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts:
Victim’s dying declaration was recorded after a delay, and the accused argued it was not reliable.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court observed that there is no fixed rule about the time when dying declaration should be recorded.
What matters is that the declaration was made when the victim was in a hopeless expectation of death.
Delay does not invalidate the declaration if the victim was in the same frame of mind.
Significance:
Established flexibility regarding timing of dying declarations.
Emphasized substance over procedural technicalities.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Babu Ram v. State | Minor discrepancies do not invalidate declaration | Dying declaration can convict |
| Hari Ram v. State | Medical condition alone doesn’t negate declaration | Declaration admissible if voluntary |
| R. v. Bedingfield | Declaration admissible if relates to cause of death | Credibility to be carefully considered |
| Kishan v. State | Minor variations in multiple declarations allowed | Overall consistency more important |
| Tukaram S. Dighole v. State | No fixed time for recording declaration | Timing not critical if victim expects death |
Conclusion
Dying declarations are a powerful evidentiary tool in criminal law, especially in homicide cases. Courts have consistently upheld their admissibility, provided the declaration is made voluntarily, by a conscious declarant, and relates to the cause of death. Minor inconsistencies, delay in recording, or medical condition do not necessarily render them inadmissible.
RELATED Blog
0 comments