Abstract

In the Indian legal system, the idea of a deathbed declaration is very important, especially in light of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is close to passing away about the cause or circumstances of their death. Despite being technically hearsay, such a remark is allowed to be admitted in court under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The legal underpinnings, judicial interpretations, evidentiary value, procedural requirements, and important concerns regarding dying statements in India are all covered in detail in this article. To provide a thorough picture, comparative analysis from other jurisdictions and reform recommendations are also included.

Keywords: Hearsay, Admissibility, Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, Dying Declaration, and Judicial Precedents

I. Introduction

Across the globe, legal systems uphold the notion that "a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth" when allowing dying declarations. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, codifies this idea under Indian law. The reasoning stems from the idea that someone who is close to death is not likely to tell lies. Nonetheless, the rule necessitates careful examination because it is an exemption to the general prohibition against hearsay testimony.

This article evaluates the validity, difficulties, and reach of dying statements by examining their statutory foundation, case law development, and various facets. Examining different kinds of dying statements, the function of medical experts, and the required procedural safeguards will also be covered in the conversation.

II. Statutory Framework

A.  Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Statements made by an individual regarding the reason of their death or any of the circumstances of the transaction that led to their death are relevant in cases where the cause of that individual's death is questioned, according to Section 32(1).

The statement says:

"When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question, such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death."

This clause acknowledges the statement as substantial evidence and permits an exception to the hearsay rule.

B. Rationale for Admissibility

The psychological state of a dying person, who is thought to have no reason to lie, is the foundation for the presumption of truthfulness. Furthermore, the victim may be the only direct witness in a large number of homicide cases. The goal of the law is to keep justice from failing in these situations.

III. Types of Dying Declarations

Dying declarations can be made in various forms:

1.     Oral Dying Declarations: These are declarations that the deceased person makes before passing away, usually to a family member, law enforcement official, or medical professional.

2.     Written Dying Declarations: These are recorded by the departed and may take the shape of signed notes or letters.

3.     Nods and Gestures: In cases where the victim is unable to speak because of injuries, courts have accepted statements delivered by nods or gestures.

4.     Video/Audio Recordings: As a result of technological advancements, dying declarations are now also captured on electronic media.

IV. Procedural Requirements

Procedural integrity is crucial to a dying declaration's trustworthiness and admissibility.

A. Role of Magistrates

A Judicial Magistrate should ideally record a dying declaration. In P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 443, the Supreme Court stressed how crucial a magistrate's attendance is to guarantee legitimacy.

B. Medical Certification

A medical officer must attest that the declarant is in a fit state of mind and body before the recording can begin. It was decided in Kake Singh v. State of M.P., 1982 Cri LJ 986 (MP) that the lack of such certification was a grave defect.

C. Language and Translation

The declarant's native tongue must be used to record the declaration, and if it is translated, accuracy must be guaranteed.

D. Signature or Thumb Impression

The declarant should, if at all feasible, sign or thumb-mark the declaration, and the recording officer should certify it.

E. Cross-Examination and Corroboration

Despite the admissibility of deathbed declarations, courts frequently look for confirmation, especially if they were recorded by the police or private parties.

V. Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

Indian courts have laid down several principles regarding the acceptance and weight of dying declarations.

A. Sole Basis for Conviction

The Supreme Court ruled in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22, that a sincere and voluntary dying declaration can serve as the only foundation for conviction in the absence of evidence.

B. Multiple Dying Declarations

In State of U.P. v. Veer Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 117, the reliability of several dying declarations was questioned due to their contradictions.

C. Involvement of Police

Because police personnel run the possibility of coercion or fabrication, the Court stressed prudence when recording a declaration in State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar, (2005) 9 SCC 769.

VI. Comparative Jurisprudence

A. United Kingdom

According to common law, dying declarations must be made with a firm, hopeless anticipation of death and are only admissible in homicide cases.

B. United States

According to Rule 804(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, deathbed declarations may be made in civil or homicide proceedings as long as the declarant thought their death was impending.

C. Canada and Australia

Similar rules apply in these jurisdictions, which restrict admissibility to homicide-related criminal proceedings and demand that the declarant have a strong belief in imminent death.

VII. Criticisms and Challenges

A. Reliability Issues

There is no guarantee that a dying person will always tell the truth. Accuracy may be impacted by elements like discomfort, mental confusion, and outside influence.

B. Potential for Fabrication

False implication is a serious issue because the declarant cannot be cross-examined, especially in family conflicts.

C. Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses

Courts have regularly discovered inconsistencies among several declarations or procedural errors such incomplete certification of medical fitness.

VIII. Recommendations for Reform

1.     Standardised Procedures: Nationwide adoption of uniform standards for documenting dying declarations is necessary.

2.     Technological Integration: Using video footage can increase transparency and believability.

3.     Official Training: Appropriate recording techniques should be taught to police officers and magistrates.

4.     Required Medical Certification: It should be mandatory to verify the declarant's physical and mental health.

IX. Conclusion

In the criminal court system, dying declarations remain crucial, particularly when the victim is the sole eyewitness. Although the idea underlying their admission is reasonable, their actual use necessitates prudence, consistency, and procedural discipline. Although strong rules have been established by judicial precedents, errors nevertheless compromise the validity of this type of evidence. Legal reforms must minimise these dangers while maintaining the usefulness of dying statements in order to protect the sanctity of justice.

Bibliography

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22

3. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 443

4. State of U.P. v. Veer Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 117

5. Kake Singh v. State of M.P., 1982 Cri LJ 986 (MP)

6. State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar, (2005) 9 SCC 769

7. Sarkar, S. C., Law of Evidence, 18th ed. (LexisNexis, 2020)

8. Field, C.D., Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act, Vol. 1 (Delhi Law House, 2019)

9. Federal Rules of Evidence (USA), Rule 804(b)(2)

10.  Cross, Rupert, Evidence, 9th ed. (Butterworths, 1990)