Landmark Supreme Court Judgements on Dying Declarations in India
Key Supreme Court Landmark Judgments
1. Queen Empress v. Abdullah (1885)
Recognized that dying declarations need not be verbal or written—gestures or signs are admissible if they clearly communicate intent.
Set a precedent allowing non-verbal communication as a valid dying declaration.(LawBhoomi)
2. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)
Clarified that statements explaining circumstances leading to death (e.g., intentions or actions) fall under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
Expanded the definition of "circumstances of the transaction" in dying declarations.(LawBhoomi)
3. Bhajju alias Karan Singh v. State of M.P. (2012)
Affirmed that a truthful, consistent, and properly recorded dying declaration can alone sustain conviction—unless there’s very serious doubt or infirmity.
Invoked the legal maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire (“no one at death is presumed to lie”).(LawBhoomi)
4. Jayamma & Another v. State of Karnataka (2021)
Held that while a reliable dying declaration may suffice for conviction, any substantial doubts or inconsistencies necessitate corroborating evidence.
Reinforced judicial prudence when relying solely on such declarations.(LawBhoomi)
5. Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)
Acquitted the accused after identifying suspicious elements in multiple dying declarations.
Laid out detailed factors (e.g., voluntariness, first opportunity, consistency, medical condition) for courts to weigh while evaluating such declarations.(LawBhoomi)
6. Recent Guidelines & Principles (2022–2024)
The Supreme Court reiterated that a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if it inspires confidence, even without corroborative evidence.(Live Law)
In Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2024), the Court held that conviction solely on a dying declaration is valid if the victim was in a conscious and fit state of mind.(Live Law)
7. Broader Framework—Factors to Consider
In Irfan’s case and others, the Court outlined key evaluative factors:
• Voluntariness & consistency
• First opportunity rule
• Presence of prompting or coaching
• Nature of recording procedure
• The declarant’s mental and physical capacity
These help judges decide whether it’s safe to convict based only on a dying declaration.(SCC Online, LawBhoomi)
Summary Table
| Case / Period | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Queen Empress (1885) | Non-verbal acts (e.g., gestures) can constitute valid dying declarations. |
| Pakala Swami (1939) | Statements of intent form part of “circumstances of the transaction.” |
| Bhajju (2012) | Sole reliance permissible if the declaration is credible and consistent. |
| Jayamma (2021) | Inconsistencies require corroboration; cannot convict on questionable declarations. |
| Irfan (2023) | Must evaluate multiple factors; serious doubts demand corroboration. |
| Recent rulings (2022‑24) | Dying declaration alone is sufficient if it inspires court’s full confidence. |
Final Thoughts
The jurisprudence around dying declarations in India underscores a delicate balance: great weight is accorded to the solemnity of a dying person’s statement, yet courts remain vigilant, demanding it inspire unequivocal confidence before it serves as the sole basis for conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments