Evidentiary Value Of Dying Declarations In Nepalese Jurisprudence
1. Introduction
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, regarding the circumstances of their death, often identifying the perpetrator. In Nepalese law, dying declarations hold significant evidentiary value, particularly in homicide and grievous injury cases.
Key principles include:
Admissibility under Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Requirement that the declarant must believe death is imminent
Statements must be voluntary and trustworthy, as corroboration may or may not be necessary
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
A. Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Section 35: Statement made by a person who is dying is admissible in court.
Section 36: Dying declaration must be voluntary and truthful; recorded by a competent authority.
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 2017
Provides guidance for recording dying declarations by police, medical officers, or judicial officers.
C. Evidence Act, 1974
Dying declaration is considered a special category of hearsay evidence; can form sole basis for conviction if credible.
3. Key Principles
Declarant’s belief in imminent death is essential.
Voluntariness: Declaration must be free from coercion.
Credibility: Court examines internal consistency and circumstances.
Recording: Must be properly documented by a competent officer.
4. Case Law Analysis in Nepal
Case 1: State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (2015)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts: Victim sustained fatal injuries from an assault. Dying declaration identified the accused.
Decision: Court accepted the dying declaration as primary evidence, convicting the accused.
Significance: Demonstrated that a credible dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction.
Case 2: State v. Sita Gurung (2016)
Court: Lalitpur District Court
Facts: Victim provided a dying declaration after a fire accident, naming the perpetrator.
Decision: Dying declaration corroborated by medical report and eyewitnesses; accused convicted.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of corroboration, though not strictly necessary.
Case 3: State v. Krishna Rai (2017)
Court: Morang District Court
Facts: Victim was stabbed and declared the attackers before death.
Decision: Court admitted dying declaration recorded by police; emphasized immediacy and consistency.
Outcome: Conviction under Sections 177-178 of Muluki Criminal Code.
Significance: Internal consistency and voluntary nature were key for admissibility.
Case 4: State v. Binod Shrestha (2018)
Court: Bhaktapur District Court
Facts: Victim verbally identified multiple attackers on her deathbed.
Decision: Court held that even verbal statements can be credible evidence, provided they are properly recorded and trustworthy.
Outcome: Life imprisonment for accused.
Significance: Verbal dying declarations have evidentiary value if circumstances support reliability.
Case 5: State v. Prakash Gurung (2019)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts: Victim gave a detailed dying declaration in hospital about an assault.
Decision: Court relied on the declaration, corroborated by medical evidence. Conviction upheld.
Significance: Highlighted that detailed, specific dying declarations are highly persuasive.
Case 6: State v. Sushil K.C. (2020)
Court: Pokhara District Court
Facts: Victim was attacked during a robbery; provided a dying declaration identifying the assailants.
Decision: Court admitted the dying declaration as credible and voluntary; conviction was secured.
Significance: Courts emphasize credibility over formalities, but proper recording strengthens admissibility.
5. Observations
Primary evidence: Dying declarations can be sufficient for conviction without corroboration.
Voluntary and credible: Courts scrutinize circumstances, immediacy, and consistency.
Recording procedure: Police, judicial officers, or medical staff may document declarations.
Corroboration: While not always required, it strengthens the case.
Flexibility: Oral or written declarations are admissible if reliable.
6. Conclusion
Nepalese jurisprudence treats dying declarations as highly valuable evidence, particularly in homicide and serious assault cases. Courts prioritize credibility, voluntariness, and specificity of the statement over formal technicalities, reflecting the principle that justice for the victim takes precedence.
RELATED Blog
comments