Dying declaration

What is dying declaration? Discuss its evidentiary value. Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration?

Table of Contents

Dying declaration

The term ‘dying declaration’ has neither been used nor defined by any Indian law statute. It is however incorporated under section 26(a) of BSA (Sec. 32(1) of IEA). It is based on the legal expression ‘letterm mortem’ which means ‘words said before death’. Ordinarily, it refers to the statements made by a person before his death explaining the cause of his own death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.
Meaning under the law: As per sec. 26(a), statements (written or oral) made by a dead person, of relevant facts are relevant if they are made by him as to the cause of his death, or as to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, when the question as to the cause of his death arises in any case.
Such statements are relevant, irrespective of whether or not the person was under the expectation of death, and
The proceeding where the question of his death arises can be of any nature.
The concept is originated from the Latin maxim ‘Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’ which means ‘a man will not meet his maker or God with a lie in his mouth’. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, and is based on the principles of necessity and convenience.
Some essential points about dying declaration:
To invoke the provision, the death of the declarant must occur.
The statement would be relevant only if it relates to the cause of his own death, and not of any other person.
The statement must be complete, clear and unambiguous.
The declarant must be a competent witness.
The statement should be free from any compulsion, force or pressure.
A dying declaration is proved like any other fact. As per sec. 161 of BSA (sec. 158 of IEA) if such statements are proved, all matters may also be proved in order to—
Contradict or corroborate it, or
Impeach or confirm the credit of the person who made such statement, which might have been proved, if that person would have been called as a witness.

📌 Evidentiary value of dying declaration:

A dying declaration stands on the same footing as any other evidence, and is considered a substantive piece of evidence. There is no rule of law which bars conviction solely on the basis of uncorroborated dying declaration. However, as a rule of caution and prudence, it should be corroborated, for reasons such as:

It is inherently hearsay evidence. Neither it is taken on oath, nor it is subjected to cross-examination to test its veracity.

Due to the grave and intense surrounding circumstances, there are chances of the declarant being under state of confusion or unconsciousness, and might as well be drawing upon his imagination.

It may be used by the declarant as his last opportunity to implicate an innocent person.

The general principle on which dying declaration is admitted is that, no one would wish to die with a lie on his lips. Being the victim, dying man might have been the only eye-witness to such time, his statement would be a piece of direct evidence. Exclusion of his statement would tend to defeat the ends of justice. If the truthfulness of a dying declaration is beyond doubt, the conviction can be held solely upon it [State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed (1983 SC)].

In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958 SC), the Apex court observed that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. If dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, it can be made basis of conviction without any further corroboration.