Dying Declarations In Digital Form
1. Introduction
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person on the verge of death, explaining the cause or circumstances of their death. It is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even though it's hearsay, based on the belief that a person on the brink of death will not lie.
With technological advancement, dying declarations are increasingly recorded in digital formats such as:
Video recordings
Audio recordings
WhatsApp messages
Typed or emailed statements
Phone recordings
2. Legal Basis
Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead... are relevant when the statement is made as to the cause of their death... in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.”
This includes digital statements, as courts have held the medium is not more important than the voluntariness, truthfulness, and authenticity.
3. Conditions for Accepting Digital Dying Declarations
Courts accept a digitally recorded dying declaration if:
The person was in a fit state of mind.
The statement was voluntary.
It is properly authenticated.
There was no prompting or tutoring.
It is clear and unambiguous.
The person died after making it.
The device used is reliable, and the chain of custody is intact.
4. Important Case Laws on Dying Declarations in Digital Form
Case 1: Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22
Facts: Though this case predates digital recording, it is foundational. The accused was convicted based on a dying declaration.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, even without corroboration, if the court is convinced it is truthful and voluntary.
Importance: Established foundational principles later applied to digital declarations.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts: The issue was whether video conferencing could be used to record witness testimony.
Held: The Court held that evidence could be recorded via video conferencing, and it does not violate the rights of the accused.
Importance: While not directly a dying declaration case, it opened the door for video-recorded testimonies (including dying declarations) to be treated as valid.
Case 3: Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 657
Facts: The victim gave a video-recorded dying declaration before a magistrate in a hospital.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of video-recorded dying declarations, provided the person was in a fit mental state and there was no coercion or influence.
Importance: Validated the use of video recordings for dying declarations under Section 32(1).
Case 4: Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 1999 SCC (Cri) 1138
Facts: The dying declaration was recorded on a tape recorder, and later, the victim died.
Held: The court accepted the audio recording as valid evidence, stating that the method of recording does not invalidate the declaration if proven to be genuine.
Importance: Precedent for accepting audio recordings as dying declarations.
Case 5: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 2973
Facts: The dying declaration was not recorded by a magistrate, but by a medical officer.
Held: The Court ruled that magisterial recording is not mandatory. What matters is whether the person was mentally fit and the statement is reliable and voluntary.
Importance: Supports acceptance of dying declarations in informal or digital forms, provided reliability is established.
Case 6: Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) SCC Online Del 8619
Facts: The victim recorded her dying declaration via mobile video, stating the cause of her death due to burning by her husband.
Held: The Delhi High Court accepted the mobile-recorded video statement as a valid dying declaration, citing that technology cannot be ignored if the evidence is authentic.
Importance: Strong affirmation of mobile phone recordings as legitimate forms of dying declarations.
Case 7: State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC 323
Facts: Victim’s dying statement was recorded on mobile phone, but defense challenged its authenticity.
Held: Supreme Court held that mobile-recorded declarations are admissible if there is no evidence of manipulation, and the device and file are authenticated properly.
Importance: Reinforced chain of custody and technical reliability of digital devices as essential.
5. Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Accepted Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Khushal Rao | Sole basis for conviction | General |
| Praful Desai | Video conferencing valid | Video testimony |
| Bhanwar Singh | Video dying declaration upheld | Video |
| Harjit Kaur | Audio dying declaration valid | Tape/audio |
| Laxman v. Maharashtra | Magistrate not mandatory | Oral/audio |
| Jagbir Singh | Mobile video accepted | Mobile phone video |
| Suvarnamma | Mobile video must be authenticated | Mobile phone |
6. Key Considerations for Digital Dying Declarations
✅ Fit mental condition of declarant
✅ Voluntary statement, no external influence
✅ Proper authentication of digital media
✅ No tampering or editing
✅ Clear cause of death stated
✅ Chain of custody preserved
✅ Device used is reliable and accessible
7. Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has progressively evolved to include digital dying declarations as valid evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The medium (video, audio, mobile, electronic) is not a barrier, as long as:
The content is trustworthy,
The person is mentally fit, and
Due process is followed.
Such declarations can even be the sole basis for conviction if the court is satisfied with their genuineness and reliability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments