INTRODUCTION
Every human utterance holds the power to shape a story. Some words, however, are spoken when the weight of mortality looms large — words of a dying person that can tilt the scales of justice long after the speaker is gone. This is the delicate realm of the ‘dying declaration’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Statutory Backbone: Section 32(1)
The Indian Evidence Act does not beat around the bush. Section 32(1) clearly says that statements made by a person as to the cause of their death or circumstances resulting in their death are relevant in cases where the cause of death is in question. In simpler terms, when someone gives up a statement while on the verge of death — explaining how they met this fate — the law grants that statement a place in the courtroom.
The law’s rationale is stark yet profound. It believes that when death stares a person in the face, they are unlikely to lie. The solemn expectation is that one does not meet death with deceit. This belief has endured centuries, echoing older common law traditions from England.
Why Dying Declarations Matter
In many homicide cases, the victim alone knows the real story. They may die without giving formal testimony in court. Without Section 32(1), crucial evidence would vanish with the deceased. The provision thus preserves the victim’s final account, giving it legal status that often shapes the entire prosecution.
In a country like India, where many violent crimes take place within private settings, dying declarations often provide the only direct clue about the assailant’s identity or motive. Courts have, time and again, underlined their importance. They can even form the sole basis for conviction if found truthful and voluntary.
No Oath, No Cross-Examination
Unlike ordinary testimony, dying declarations stand apart. They do not get tested through cross-examination. There is no oath or promise to speak the truth before a judge. Yet, the court leans on the belief that the fear of impending death outweighs the temptation to lie. This deviation from the standard adversarial process sparks healthy debate. Critics worry that it can be misused or manipulated. Supporters trust the ancient principle that no man would face his maker with a false tongue.
To balance this tension, courts lay down strict guidelines for accepting such statements. They look for signs of voluntariness, mental fitness of the declarant, and consistency in the statement.
Judicial Safeguards: How Courts Treat Dying Declarations
Over the years, India’s judiciary has built a robust body of precedent clarifying when a dying declaration deserves reliance. Here are some key aspects:
Voluntariness is the soul of a dying declaration. If a statement is forced, tutored, or extracted under pressure, its value plummets. The declarant must speak freely, without coercion.
Mental fitness is equally crucial. The declarant must be in a fit state of mind. Many dying declarations are recorded by magistrates or doctors who first certify that the person is conscious, oriented, and capable of understanding questions. This certification carries weight.
Multiple declarations can cause puzzles. If a victim gives different versions at different times, courts examine which version appears reliable. Contradictions must be explained. Otherwise, benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
Courts have repeatedly affirmed that a dying declaration does not need corroboration to convict an accused. But prudence suggests that when circumstances permit, supporting evidence adds strength. After all, no judge wants to condemn a person solely on shaky last words.
Form and Recording: Not Cast in Stone
The Evidence Act does not dictate a rigid format. A dying declaration can be oral or written. It can even be communicated through gestures, nods, or signs if the victim cannot speak. There are cases where burn victims answered questions by blinking or moving their heads. Courts accept such forms, provided there is no doubt about the intent.
Ideally, a dying declaration should be recorded by a magistrate. But this is not mandatory. Doctors, police officers, or even any credible witness can record it if circumstances demand urgency. The Supreme Court, however, prefers a magistrate’s recording because it adds a layer of neutrality.
Where possible, the statement should be in the declarant’s own words. Interpolation, interpretation, or summary by the recorder is frowned upon. Any change in meaning dilutes credibility.
Illustrative Cases
Several landmark cases have shaped this area. In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939), the Privy Council defined dying declarations broadly, saying they include not just statements of how death occurred but the circumstances that may have led to it.
In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958), the Supreme Court laid down that dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction if found truthful.
In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the apex court clarified that absence of a doctor’s certification is not fatal if other evidence shows the victim was mentally fit to give the statement.
These and many other judgments illustrate how courts apply a human touch — balancing the rights of the accused with the dying words of a victim.
Challenges and Criticism
Not everything about dying declarations is uncontroversial. Critics argue that victims may be under influence of family, police, or other external factors. Pain, medication, or emotional turmoil can cloud clarity. Language barriers or poor recording practices add to the risk of misinterpretation.
Sometimes dying declarations are fabricated altogether. A police officer with vested interests may twist facts. An angry relative may tutor a victim to wrongly implicate someone. Courts remain alive to such possibilities, reminding prosecutors that the burden of proving authenticity lies firmly on their shoulders.
Reform and the Way Ahead
Some scholars and practitioners suggest stricter safeguards. More training for police and doctors on how to record statements accurately, perhaps video recording every dying declaration when feasible, could reduce disputes. Technology can help. Body cameras, hospital CCTV, or even smartphone recordings can supplement handwritten or oral accounts.
Legal literacy too plays a part. Families, caregivers, and hospital staff should understand the seriousness of a dying declaration. It is not just another statement; it can decide someone’s life and liberty.
The Enduring Relevance
Despite criticism, dying declarations remain vital in India’s criminal justice system. They reflect a blend of practicality and principle. They remind us that even in death, a voice can speak. It is up to the courts, lawyers, and society to treat that voice with care — to test its honesty without prejudice and to remember that justice demands truth, even if whispered from the edge of life.
In a system where delays, witness hostility, and fear often silence the living, the words of the dying stand as a rare exception. They are fragile echoes, but sometimes they are enough to bring the truth into the light.
CONTRIBUTED BY : LAKSHAY NANDWANI (INTERN)