Section- 32 (1)

DYING DECLARATION
STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION~ 32
Statements (Written or Verbal) made by Statements are relevant in following
persons… Cases:
1. Who is dead; 1. When it relates to cause of death;
2. Who can not be found; 2. Made in course of business;
3. Who has become incapable of giving 3. Against interest of maker;
evidence;
4. Gives opinion as to public right or
4. Whose attendance cannot be procured, custom or matter of general interest;
without an amount of delay or expense,
5. Relates to existence of relationship;
which appears unreasonable to court
6. Made in Will or deed relating to family
affairs;
7. In document relating to transaction
mentioned in Section 13 (a) {Transaction
in which right or custom created,
claimed, modified…}
PRINCIPLE OF SECTION~32
Exception to Hearsay Rule~ Opportunity of Cross Examination is dispensed with,
because that person who experienced it / transacted it can not be brought before the
court.
His statement would be the best evidence, if he would be called to give testimony
in the court.
The statement was made in those circumstances, where there is no reason to falsify
the statement;
Section 32, contains other safeguard to ensure trustworthiness of the statement.
SECTION-32 (1) DYING DECLARATION
1. In any proceeding~ (Civil or Criminal), where death of any person is in question.
2. Statement (written or verbal)
3. Made by a person (Deceased)
4. Subject-matter of Statement~
 Cause of his Death ; or
 Circumstances of the Transaction resulted his death.

Statement is relevant, whether such statement was made in the expectation of death or not.
STATEMENT
1. Queen Empress v. Abdullah (1885) ILR 7 All 385,
 Sign should be relevant or not ?
If yes, under what provision ‘as conduct’ or ‘as statement’?
If Conduct, it should be immediate or otherwise?
If statement ~ what category verbal or written?
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRANSACTION
RESULTED DEATH..
Pakala Narain Swamy v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47.
Facts: On Tuesday, March 23, 1937, at about noon the body of Kuree Nukaraju was found in a
steel trunk in a third class compartment at Puri Railway Station where the trunk had been left
unclaimed. The body had been cut into seven portions. was killed. Accused Pakala Narain
Swamy, his wife and wife's brother were charged for the murder.
Deceased was peon of Dewan of Pithampur. One of the daughter of Diwan was the wife of the
Accused.
Four letter were produced signed by the accused’s wife bearing dates were produced by the
deceased wife. The Session Court rejected the evidence in absence of handwriting matching and
motive. There was no other evidence in the hands of the prosecution.
Other evidence which was shown : that Accused Couple was staying in Behrampur since 1919,
then in 1933 they came to Pethampur and start living with her father. And they were in need of
money.
In 1936, Accused's wife borrowed money on 18% Annual interest of which signed notes of
On March 20, 1937, the deceased man received a letter the contents of which were not accurately proved, but it was
reasonably clear that it invited him to come that day or next day to Berhampur. It was unsigned. “The widow said that
on that day her husband showed her a letter and said that he was going to Berhampur as the appellant's wife had
written to him and told him to go and receive payment of his due.” The deceased left his house on Sunday, March
21, in time to catch the train for Berhampur. On Tuesday, March 23, his body was found in the train at Puri.
Identity of Trunk : In addition to evidence of the facts above stated the prosecution adduced the evidence of two
employees in a shop at Berhampur where trunks were made and sold, who gave evidence that on Monday, March 22, in
the afternoon the dhobie or washerman of the accused called at the shop and ordered a trunk, and that a trunk was taken
to the accused's house and shown to him and his wife. It was rejected as being too large, and a smaller one of the
size of the trunk in question was then delivered to the dhobie at the shop and he took it away. The transaction was
entered in the rough day book and in the fair copy book of the shop as of the day in question ; Court was satisfied that
the enteries established the sale of such a trunk on that day. The witnesses identified the trunk in which the body was
found.
Witness of Dhobie : The dhobie was called and proved the purchase of a trunk.
Witness of Carrier: The prosecution then sought to prove that the accused took the trunk to the train in which it was
found on Tuesday, March 23. Evidence was given by a jetka driver said the accused had come to his house and said he
wanted a jetka ; that he drove to the accused's house ; that a trunk which was like the trunk in question was loaded on
the jetka ; and that he drove the accused with the trunk to the station where the trunk was unloaded and taken into the
station. The evidence was corroborated by a man who ran alongside the jetka in charge of the horse which was fresh.
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622

 Appellant was convicted for murder of his wife just after few months of his
marriage.
Deceased was complaining to her relatives and parents about the danger to her
life. She had written letters to her parents around 3-4 months before the death.
The Court considered following points :
1. Happening of event after 4 moths shall be considered under the same
transaction.
2. Section 32(1) also applies in the case of suicide.
 TWO OR MORE DYING DECLARATIONS
Shanmugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (10) SRJ 489 SC., Accused killed his younger brother. All eye
witnesses turned hostile, even the wife of deceased. But two dying declaration were recorded : first, made
to the police constable and second, recorded by Judicial Magistrate, the Court relied upon the dying
declaration and held the accused guilty.

Mukesh v. NCT Delhi (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673 ; (2017) 7 SCC 1

 There were three dying declarations recorded as :
 First, on December 16, 2012 to Dr. Rashmi Ahuja
Second, on December 21, 2012 to SDM.
Third, on December 25, 2012 to Metropolitan Megistrate.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF D.D….JUDICIAL APPROACH

(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court.
(ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the
statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without
any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of
conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
(v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never
make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be
rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying
declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGLISH LAW AND INDIAN LAW
English Law :
 Statement is relevant in the Charge of
murder and manslaughter.
 Statement should be made in
expectation of imminent death
Indian Law:
 Statement is relevant wherever his
death is in question.
It is immaterial whether the statement
was made in in apprehension of death or
not.