Dying Declaration

Since time immemorial, the Dying Declarations have been a pertinent tool in the Common Law
Systems in the administration and delivery of justice. This is based on the principle of "Leterm
Mortem" which basically means the 'words spoken before death'. This is called Dying
Declaration in the legal term. These declarations come under the Evidence Law. These are
made on the assumption that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. The
statement is not admissible where there is the slightest chance of the recovery of the person
making it, or if he is incompetent in the eyes of law while making them. It is perceived and
accepted that a person on his deathbed will not distort his statements and not indulge in
miscarriage of justice.

'Truth sits upon the lips of dying man'- Matthew Arnold

Section 32 (1) of The Indian Evidence Act defines when the statement is made by the person as
the cause of his death, or as any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his
loss of life, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such
statements made by the person are relevant whether the person who made them was alive or
was not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and whatever may
be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. These
declarations lose value if multiple dying declarations made are in variance with each other. A
Dying Declaration can be recorded by any person or a policeman, but it will muster more
strength and reliability if recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. Also, there is no format for the
dying declaration. In Queen v. Abdulla, it was held that if any person is injured to such an
extent that he can't even speak then his dying declaration can be recorded through his signs
and gestures.

The notorious Delhi gang rape case, also known as the Nirbhaya Case, was held by the Supreme
Court- "In the case of rape and sexual assault, the evidence of the prosecutrix is very crucial and
if it inspires confidence of the court, there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration
of the same for convicting the accused based on it. Courts are expected to act with sensitivity
and appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix in the background of the entire facts of the case
and not in isolation." Courts have repeatedly held that dying declarations should be such that
on going through it, "an impression has to be registered immediately in mind that it is genuine,
true and not tainted with doubts." Courts look to determine that such declarations are
voluntary unless it is proved that the declaration was "tainted with animosity and a result of
tutoring."
However, Dying Declaration is being abused by people to defeat the system of equity and
justice. Dying declaration unquestionably is a paramount fact that helps the judiciary to take
pertinent decisions and simplifies the arduous task of discovering the veracity of truth. In the
year 2007, The Apex court set aside a conviction order passed solely based on a dying
declaration. A Sessions court in Guntur had awarded a life sentence previously to the appellant
accused, relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased. It was confirmed by the AP High
Court subsequently. Ordering his immediate release provided the accused is not required in
connection with any other case, the apex court said in the present case it is difficult to rest the
conviction solely on the dying declaration. The deceased sustained as many as 63 injuries.
Having regard to the nature of the injuries, the deceased may not have been in a position to
make any such statement. According to the prosecution, the deceased, Dasari Srinivasa Rao
alias, Bujji was an accused in a case relating to the murder of the brother of the appellant,
Nallapati Sivaiah.

Dying declarations have been accorded statutory recognition but courts should employ caution
and bestow legal acumen while placing reliance on such statements as a tool to seek the truth
in the trial. The necessity of corroboration as a rule of prudence and caution arises because the
propensity of tutoring the witness is very much pertinent in our judicial system and often the
family members and relatives use this vulnerable opportunity to unleash their sweet vengeance
upon their enemies and falsely implicate an individual who might not be the real culprit. Any
manipulation which may either be the product of the victim's imagination or the result of
malice motivated by a previous grudge or enmity is bound to mutilate the charm of judicial
modesty. Hence courts have adhered to the rule of caution and have propounded the clarity
rule.