Case Law On Dying Declarations Under Evidence Act
Dying Declarations under the Evidence Act
🔹 INTRODUCTION
A dying declaration (DD) is a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, regarding the circumstances of their death or the cause thereof.
Legal Basis: Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows dying declarations as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Purpose: It ensures that a person who is unable to testify in court can have their statement used as evidence.
Key Principles:
The person must believe death is imminent.
Declaration must relate to the cause of death or facts surrounding it.
Must be made voluntarily, without inducement or coercion.
Can be oral or written, and need not be before a magistrate, although recording by magistrate adds weight.
Court examines the truthfulness and reliability before relying on DD.
🔸 1. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: State of U.P. v. Ram Singh, AIR 1964 SC 999
Facts: The victim was attacked and made a dying declaration naming the accused.
Held: Supreme Court held that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, provided the court finds it truthful and voluntary.
Principle: A DD need not be corroborated, but credibility is vital.
Case 2: K. R. Lallu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 1515
Facts: The victim made a DD naming the assailant, but the statement was made in extreme pain.
Held: Supreme Court ruled that pain or stress does not invalidate a DD, as long as it was voluntarily made.
Principle: The mental or physical condition of the declarant does not automatically affect admissibility; the focus is on truthfulness.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1445
Facts: DD was recorded before police officers, not a magistrate, and the accused challenged its admissibility.
Held: Court held that DDs are admissible even if recorded by police, but the credibility is for the court to assess.
Principle: DDs recorded by police are not invalid, but require careful judicial scrutiny.
Case 4: Gopal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1632
Facts: Victim made multiple DDs, some inconsistent regarding details of the assault.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies do not render a DD inadmissible.
Principle: Courts look at the substance of the DD, not trivial differences, in evaluating its reliability.
Case 5: Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 152
Facts: Victim’s DD was made in hospital before a doctor, shortly after attack.
Held: Supreme Court held that a DD recorded immediately after the incident has high evidentiary value and can be used for conviction.
Principle: Proximity in time to the incident enhances credibility of DD.
🔹 2. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Voluntariness: Dying declarations must be made freely, without pressure.
Reliability: Court evaluates truthfulness and circumstances, not just the form.
No requirement for corroboration: A DD can be the sole basis for conviction, but courts must be satisfied of its credibility.
Minor inconsistencies allowed: Trivial variations do not affect admissibility.
Recording by police or doctor: Acceptable, though magistrate recording is preferred.
🔹 3. SUMMARY TABLE OF CASES
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Court’s Observation / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. v. Ram Singh | 1964 | DD as sole evidence | Can be sole basis for conviction if credible |
| K. R. Lallu v. Maharashtra | 1966 | DD made under pain | Physical/mental stress does not invalidate DD |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | 2006 | Police-recorded DD | Valid, but court must assess credibility |
| Gopal Singh v. Punjab | 1963 | Inconsistent DDs | Minor inconsistencies do not affect admissibility |
| Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Bihar | 1976 | DD recorded immediately | Proximity to incident increases reliability |
🔹 4. CONCLUSION
Dying declarations are a powerful tool in criminal law, especially in murder or assault cases.
Their admissibility and weight depend on:
Voluntariness
Truthfulness
Timing and circumstances of recording
Courts have consistently ruled that DDs can be sole evidence, but judicial caution is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments