Dying Declarations Evidence
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 death. In legal terms, it is an exception to the hearsay rule—such statements are admissible as evidence in criminal cases, especially murder or homicide trials.
Key Features:
Made by the victim who is on the verge of death.
Must relate to the cause or circumstances of death.
Must be voluntary and trustworthy.
Can be oral or written.
The declarant need not be under oath.
Usually admissible only if the victim actually dies.
Why is Dying Declaration Important?
Normally, hearsay evidence (statements made outside court) is inadmissible.
But dying declarations are treated as reliable because the person is unlikely to lie when facing death.
It helps the court get crucial evidence when the victim cannot testify.
Legal Position and Principles
Admissible under the Evidence Act (e.g., Section 32(1) in Indian Evidence Act).
Must pertain to the cause of death.
The victim must have the mental capacity to make the declaration.
The court judges the truthfulness and reliability of the declaration.
Landmark Case Laws on Dying Declarations
1. Queen-Empress v. Bedri Chacha (1894)
Facts: The victim made a statement identifying the accused as the attacker before dying.
Held: The Privy Council held that a dying declaration is admissible and can be the sole basis of conviction if trustworthy.
Principle: The court emphasized the reliability and solemnity of dying declarations as exceptions to hearsay.
2. K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (1959) AIR 446
Facts: The victim made multiple dying declarations regarding her attacker.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration need not be corroborated if the court finds it credible.
Principle: A credible dying declaration alone can sustain conviction even without corroboration.
3. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1976) AIR 235
Facts: The dying declaration was made hours before death by a victim of a stabbing.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled the dying declaration admissible and reliable, leading to conviction.
Principle: The timing of the declaration and mental condition of the victim are crucial for its acceptance.
4. Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014)
Facts: A dying declaration was challenged on grounds of being coerced and inconsistent.
Held: The court held that the dying declaration must be voluntary and free from any external influence. If suspicious, it needs corroboration.
Principle: Voluntariness and reliability are paramount; courts must scrutinize for inconsistencies.
5. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: The victim’s dying declaration identified accused, but some procedural lapses were alleged.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the dying declaration as admissible, emphasizing the circumstances under which it was made.
Principle: Procedural irregularities do not automatically discredit dying declarations if they appear truthful and consistent.
Summary
Dying declarations are a critical exception to hearsay evidence, admissible in criminal cases.
Their credibility depends on voluntariness, consistency, and the victim’s mental state.
Courts accept dying declarations without corroboration if trustworthy.
The above cases illustrate how courts balance reliability, voluntariness, and procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments