Author: Anshuli Singh
Student at Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pune
Abstract
In criminal law, few forms of evidence evoke as much emotional and legal weight as a dying declaration. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), continuing the legacy of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, preserves this exception to the hearsay rule. But does the solemnity of one’s final words always guarantee truth? This article explores the evidentiary value of last statements made by deceased before dying, their admissibility, key judicial interpretations, and critically examines the possible loopholes and risks of relying solely on the words of a dying person when the truth may die with them.
To The Point
A dying declaration is admissible even if made to a police officer and can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 26 of BSA. The law treads a fine line – balancing respect for a person’s final words with the need to ensure justice isn’t compromised by presumed truth. The challenge lies in distinguishing genuine declarations from coached or incomplete ones. This article analyzes when such statements become credible legal evidence and when they risk becoming dangerous loopholes.
Legal Jargon Decoded
Before diving into interpretation, let’s decode a few terms that frequently appear in the legal discourse on dying declarations:
Dying Declaration: A statement made by a person about the cause or circumstances of their death.
Hearsay Evidence: It is a statement made by someone not testifying in court, used to prove the truth of what was stated, it is generally inadmissible unless an exception like dying declaration applies.
Substantive Evidence: Evidence that, by itself, is sufficient to prove a fact in issue.
Tutored Declaration: A statement that is coached, prompted, or manipulated by external influence.
Infirmity: A weakness or defect in a statement, which shakes the credibility or completeness of the statement.
The Proof:
Legal Framework under BSA, 2023
Section 26(a) of BSA states dying declaration as a legally admissible statement under law. It applies when:
A person makes a statement related to the cause or circumstances of their death.
The person is dead, or their death becomes the central point of investigation.
The expectation of death is not necessary for the admissibility of such statements.
This provision marks a departure from the English common law approach, which historically required a sense of impending death for admissibility.
Moreover, BSA doesn’t confine dying declarations to oral testimony alone. The statement can be written, spoken, gestured, or even recorded provided it captures the person’s intent regarding the cause of their death.
Substantive Value, But With Strings Attached
The law treats a dying declaration as substantive evidence which need not be corroborated. This means that a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration, without needing any external support, provided the court finds it truthful and voluntary.
Yet, this immense legal power comes with caveats.
The courts have laid down that:
The statement must be free from tutoring or prompting.
If found suspicious, it cannot form the basis of conviction unless corroborated by other pieces of evidence.
Where multiple declarations exist, the one made first chronologically is generally given more weight.
The completeness of the statement is critical. An incomplete declaration, where the person dies mid-way, may not hold evidentiary value, though courts have evolved a more flexible approach over time.
The Broader Net of Section 26:
Section 26 under BSA is not restricted to only death related statements and expands it’s admissibility beyond death-related statements. It includes statements by a person (now unavailable) that relate to:
1. Ordinary course of business – declarations with regards to entries, receipts, or acknowledgements and other transactions
2. Statements against personal interest – statements that involve liability or criminal exposure.
3. Public rights or customs – declarations made before disputes arise.
4. Family relationships and documents – including wills, deeds, and inscriptions.
5. Legal instruments – deeds or wills related to the dispute in question.
These are admissible only when the person is dead or not traceable. If alive, the law doesn’t allow their out-of-court statements to substitute for direct testimony.
Case Laws
Abdul Sattar v. State of Mysore (1956)
In this landmark case, the court held that an incomplete dying declaration could still be admissible if it conveys clear guilt of the accused. This broadened the scope allowing judges to prioritize substance over form.
Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
The Supreme Court observed that a person on their deathbed is unlikely to lie, lending credibility to their statement despite the lack of oath or cross-examination. The Court emphasized that excluding such evidence may amount to a miscarriage of justice, especially in cases where the victim is the sole eyewitness.
State v. Maregowda (2001)
In this case the court acknowledged a suicide note which was found in the deceased’s clothes as a valid dying declaration. This judgment widened the understanding of what constitutes a declaration emphasizing intent and relevance, not just the format or medium.
Natha Shankar Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2011)
The Bombay High Court cautioned against blind reliance. If in case a dying declaration raises suspicion or found to be incomplete, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This underlines the importance of context and clarity when evaluating such evidence.
When Last Words Become Legal Minefields: Interpretation & Loopholes
While dying declarations serve as an essential tool in the justice system, they also raise critical questions:
What if the declarant was not mentally sound?
Admissibility doesn’t always ensure reliability. A person in trauma, under medication, or panic may speak incoherently yet the law may treat those words as final truth.
No Cross-Examination – A Fundamental Flaw?
Since the declarant is deceased, there’s no opportunity to test the statement under cross-examination, which goes against natural justice principles.
Possibility of Manipulation
Police officers or family members present during the declaration might influence the statement. The law allows such statements to be admissible even if made to the police, which opens the door to potential coaching or misrecording.
Incomplete Yet Admissible? A Legal Grey Area
The courts have sometimes accepted partial statements creating ambiguity around what qualifies as ‘substantially complete.’ This lack of bright-line rule can lead to inconsistencies in judgments.
Multiple Versions – Which One Counts?
If a victim makes more than one dying declaration and they differ, which one should the court believe? The general rule favors the first in time, but courts also weigh tone, detail, and setting making it a subjective interpretation.
Expectation of Death Not Required — But Should It Be?
Unlike traditional legal standards, BSA doesn’t require the declarant to believe they are dying. This could allow statements made casually or without gravity to be treated as final declarations diluting the sanctity associated with last words.
Conclusion:
Dying declarations remain a fascinating crossroad where law, morality, and human vulnerability intersect. While the BSA rightly honors the gravity of a person’s final words, the legal system must ensure that this honor doesn’t override objectivity.
Blind faith in such statements without questioning their origin, completeness, and credibility risks turning justice on its head. The law’s purpose is not to glorify last words but to find the truth. And sometimes, even the last words must be questioned, especially when they’re the only words we’re left with.
FAQS :
Does a dying declaration always need to be in writing?
Not necessarily. It can be oral, written, recorded via video, or even conveyed through gestures or signs if the person is unable to speak. The key requirement is that the declarant is mentally and physically fit at the time of making it.
What if there happen to be multiple dying declarations that contradict each other?
In situations where more than one dying declaration exists and they differ, the court doesn’t blindly accept any one version. Instead, it carefully evaluates each statement in the context of the case to determine which one appears more trustworthy and in line with the supporting evidence. If the differences are significant and unexplained, the entire set of declarations may lose credibility.
Is there a deadline for recording a dying declaration?
There’s no rigid time frame prescribed for when a dying declaration must be recorded. That said, the timing can affect how reliable the statement appears. A prompt declaration tends to carry more weight, while unexplained delays can raise doubts about whether the statement was genuine or influenced.
