The Concept of Dying Declaration-(Blog)

Introduction

The law of evidence elaborates on the relevance and admissibility of evidence before the courts. The principle which governs the law is that evidence that can't be tested isn't admissible within the Court of Law. In other words, the administration of oath and cross-examination of the maker of a press release establishes the veracity of an equivalent. Thus, hearsay evidence is not an evidence.

Nevertheless, in situations, the law makes an exception as a matter necessarily like where a person is in his death bed and makes an announcement relevant to the reason behind death. The law adds great dignity and paramountcy to the words of the dying man on the bottom that at the verge of his likely departure from the earthly world, he won't enjoy falsehood and secondly, the exclusion of such evidence may end in a miscarriage of justice in the maximum amount because the victim could also be the sole eye witness of a significant crime.

Dying Declarations have thus come to occupy a crucial position within the realm of the law of evidence. It's been solely relied upon for the needs of conviction. As the many years have been passed, the Indian judiciary has tried to evolve different principles to control the admissibility of dying declarations.

Dying Declaration & Indian Evidence Act

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, explains the special statements. It comes into play only in particular situations, that is when either the person is dead or not found or incapable of giving evidence or attendance can't be procured without unreasonable delay. On proof of the previous, the knowledge of the individual that is unavailable should be transmitted to the court through another person. Subsection (1) of the section enumerates that statements made by an individual on the cause and circumstances resulting in his death are relevant and admissible in the proof as dying declarations.

The principle on which dying declarations are admitted in the proof is indicated within the legal maxim- Nemo moriturus proesumitur mentiri- a person won't meet his Maker with dwell in his mouth. These are declarations made in extremity when the party is at the verge of death and when every hope of this world is gone when every motive to falsehood is silenced and therefore the mind induced by the foremost powerful considerations to talk the truth; a situation so solemn and serene that the law considers it an obligation to simply accept the veracity of the statement.

Indian Scenario:

Under section 32, this statement must relate to the explanation for the declarant’s death, or on any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The statements by deceased aren't required to possess the imminent expectation of death so on being admitted conspicuous. The statement is admissible although it's made before the reason for death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. The statement of the dead person must explain the circumstances which are narrated by him have some direct or proximate pertaining to the causes contributing to the transaction which ultimately resulted in his death. 

Who should record the dying declaration?

Any person can record the dying declaration made by the deceased, but the one that is recording the dying declaration must have some nexus with the deceased either circumstantially or by some fact. However, the doctor or policeman holds more value as compared to the traditional person. As far because the dying declaration cares the magistrate entrusted to record the dying declaration, because the statement recorded by him is taken into account more evidential instead of statement recorded by the doctor, policeman and by the conventional person.

Moreover, a dying declaration is often recorded by an individual, or maybe by the policeman, but if it's recorded by the judicial magistrate that it'll have more credential value and reliability.

Criticism of dying declaration doctrine

Since the nineteenth century, critics have aroused the questions related to the credibility of dying declarations. During a state court case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered the problem of a dying declaration. The defense acknowledged that “this type of evidence isn't regarded with favor.” The defense argued that several factors could undermine the reliability of dying declarations.

Physical or mental weakness consequent upon the approach of death, a desire of self-vindication, or a disposition to impute the responsibility for a wrong to a different, also because the incontrovertible fact that the declarations are made within the absence of the accused, and sometimes in response to leading questions and direct suggestions, and with no opportunity for cross-examination: of these considerations conspire to render such declarations a dangerous quite evidence.

Conclusion

Dying Declaration may be a significant piece of evidence. It's going to be the last and most pertinent available evidence concerning the commission of a criminal offense. Accordingly, the law of evidence makes it relevant and also admissible. It's also substantive evidence against the accused and a conviction is often based solely on a dying declaration. Given the importance attached to the dying declaration, the courts have evolved various principles to guide it. It's important that the dying declaration should be free from errors, manipulations, and modifications. It should strike to be genuine, free from all doubts, stating the truth story of the maker. Just in case the court entertains any doubt with reference to an equivalent, it's imperative for the court to seem into corroborative evidence to check the truthfulness of the dying declaration. Just in case no such evidence is out there, the court should reject the dying declaration. it's the duty of the court to think about dying declaration in is correct perspective and satisfy itself of its truthfulness before it can proceed to convict an accused.

- Yash Singh

University of Allahabad.