Content:-
Defining Dying Declaration
The term "dying declaration" refers to a statement, whether written or verbal, containing pertinent facts, given by a deceased individual. A dying declaration lacks completeness unless it includes the full names and addresses of the individuals involved.
Hence, solely relying on similarities between the first names of the deceased and the accused in the dying declaration is deemed improper for accepting the prosecution's narrative, as it remains incomplete.
Furthermore, evidence from a dying declaration is not only admissible against the individual directly responsible for the death but also against any others involved in causing it.
Dying declaration stands as an exception to the general rule against hearsay. Its admission is justified by two primary factors: first, the victim often serves as the sole firsthand witness to the crime, and second, the impending sense of death compels a level of truthfulness akin to taking an oath.
It is believed that one would not wish to depart from this world with falsehoods on their conscience. As such, the usual requirements of oath and cross-examination are waived.
Despite not being formally recorded in court or subjected to rigorous cross-examination by the accused, a dying declaration remains admissible as evidence, deviating from the general prohibition against hearsay evidence.
Relevancy of Dying Declaration
For a dying declaration to be considered relevant, it must meet several criteria:
(i) The statement is made by a conscious person who believes or senses that death is imminent.
(ii) The statement relates to what the person believes to be the cause or circumstances of their impending death.
(iii) The recorded statement must originate directly from the individual involved, as it constitutes an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence.
(iv) The statement should possess qualities of confidence, truthfulness, and credibility.
Additionally, in the case of Mallella Shyamsunder v State of AP, the Supreme Court introduced two more conditions:
(v) The statement should not be a result of coaching or coercion.
(vi) The court may scrutinise the statement to ascertain whether it is motivated by a desire for retribution.
Procedure for Recording Dying Declaration
There exists no specific form or procedure mandated for recording a dying declaration, nor is it obligatory for it to be recorded solely by a Magistrate.
Generally, it is advisable to have the statement of the declarant endorsed by a medical practitioner.
In suitable circumstances, the satisfaction of the individual recording the statement regarding the mental state of the deceased can suffice to establish that the deceased was capable of making such a statement.
It is well-established in law that if the prosecution relies solely on the dying declaration, the courts must exercise prudence and caution to ensure its authenticity, given that the accused had no opportunity to challenge the truthfulness of the deceased's statement through cross-examination.
The legal framework does not mandate corroboration of a dying declaration before its acceptance. The requirement for corroboration is merely a precautionary principle.
When the court is convinced that the dying declaration is voluntary, untainted by coercion or hostility, and not a product of the declarant's imagination, then there is no hindrance to convicting the accused based on such a dying declaration.
Question-Answer Form
The absence of a question-answer format does not diminish the significance of a dying declaration. Merely because it lacks such a format, the inherent trustworthiness of a dying declaration, stemming from the words of a dying individual, cannot be disregarded.
A dying declaration should not be dismissed solely because it was not recorded in a question-answer format. A narrative recording may offer a more authentic portrayal of the incident as perceived by the person making the statement.
In Rajendra Singh v State, 1997 Cr LJ 2668 (All), where a magistrate recorded a dying declaration in narrative form rather than question-answer format, this was deemed insufficient grounds for rejection.
The declarant was in a sound state of mind, and there was no indication of the magistrate fabricating the statement. Omissions such as the absence of specific time references or the presence of relatives during recording did not imply coaching.
Furthermore, the absence of any animosity between the deceased and the accused supported the acceptance of the dying declaration as credible evidence.
Oral Dying Declaration
An oral dying declaration refers to a statement not officially recorded but recalled by witnesses from memory. The Supreme Court has emphasised that such statements must be reproduced accurately.
Any discrepancy among witnesses regarding the exact words significantly undermines the reliability of the oral dying declaration. While an oral dying declaration can serve as grounds for conviction in certain circumstances, it must be dependable, flawless, and instil confidence.
The precise reproduction of the declaration's exact words holds paramount importance. In the present case, variations in the exact wording substantially diminished the credibility of the oral dying declaration.
It is firmly established that an oral dying declaration can indeed lead to conviction if the declarant is in a suitable condition to make the statement and if its truthfulness is confirmed.
However, as a precautionary measure, courts typically seek corroborating evidence for an oral dying declaration. In the current case, the dying declaration failed to inspire confidence in the court.
Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration
The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is subject to certain considerations. While there is no strict rule requiring corroboration, it is generally deemed unsafe to convict solely based on a dying declaration due to its inherent limitations:
Hearsay Nature: Dying declarations are considered hearsay evidence as they are not made under oath and cannot be challenged through cross-examination in court.
Mental and Physical State: The declarant may be in a state of confusion, leading to potentially imaginative statements.
Implicating Enemies: There's a tendency for individuals to implicate their enemies in their final moments.
In evaluating the evidence of a dying declaration, several factors should be weighed:
Content and Consistency: The nature and consistency of statements made by the declarant over time.
Memory Capacity: The ability of the declarant to recall facts accurately.
Observational Opportunity: The circumstances allowing the declarant to observe and identify the assailant.
Timeliness and Promptness: Whether the statement was made promptly and without external influence or coaching.
In legal precedents, cases have highlighted the importance of scrutinising dying declarations closely. For instance, in State of Assam v M. Ahmed AIR 1983 SC 274, a wife's statement accusing her husband of setting her on fire was considered possibly tutored by her uncle.
However, in Habib Usman v State of Gujarat AIR 1979 SC 1181, the mere presence of relatives was not deemed sufficient to imply tutoring.
Landmark Cases
In Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, MR 1958 SC 22, it was established that there exists no absolute rule barring a dying declaration from being the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. Such declarations hold equal weight as any other form of evidence.
Similarly, in Kusa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 559, it was emphasised that a dying declaration deemed truthful and consistent can serve as a reliable basis for conviction, even without corroboration.
Laxman v. State Maharashtra, (2019) 11 SCC 512, clarified that dying declarations can take various forms, whether oral or written, as long as the communication is clear and affirmative.
In Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 11 SCC 343, it was affirmed that when multiple dying declarations exist, each should be assessed independently based on its own merit. Rejection of one cannot be justified solely by the content of another.
Furthermore, Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 489, highlighted that a dying declaration meeting all criteria should not be dismissed simply because it was not recorded by a magistrate or police officer, or lacked attestation by witnesses present at the time of its making.
English versus Indian Law
Point of Distinction | English Law | Indian Law |
Relevance | Relevant only in criminal cases involving death | Admissible in both civil and criminal proceedings, not restricted to cases of death |
Types of Cases | Limited to homicide cases (murder or manslaughter) | Includes cases of suicide as well |
Expectation of Death | Declaration must be made in anticipation of death | Not required; declaration remains relevant if it elucidates circumstances surrounding death |
Completion of Statement | Statement must be completed before death | Statement remains admissible even if last formal question is unanswered |
Komentarze