Police Officer Shouldn’t Re-record Dying Declaration If Already Recorded By Executive Magistrate : Chhattisgarh HC Detailed Explanation
Police Officer Shouldn’t Re-record Dying Declaration If Already Recorded by Executive Magistrate: Chhattisgarh HC
1. Understanding the Dying Declaration
A dying declaration (DD) is a statement made by a person who is about to die, regarding the cause or circumstances of their death.
It is a very important piece of evidence in criminal trials, especially in homicide cases.
The credibility and admissibility of a dying declaration often influence the outcome of the trial.
2. Legal Position on Recording Dying Declarations
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and judicial precedents provide that a dying declaration should ideally be recorded by a Magistrate.
Section 174(5) CrPC and Section 157 CrPC mandate that when a person is dying or seriously injured, the police or Magistrate should promptly record the statement.
However, when an Executive Magistrate has already recorded the dying declaration, the police officer is not required to re-record it.
Re-recording can lead to issues of duplication, contradiction, or tampering allegations.
3. Chhattisgarh High Court’s Observations
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that if a dying declaration has been properly recorded by an Executive Magistrate, the police should not re-record the same statement.
The Court noted:
The Executive Magistrate is a competent authority and entrusted with the duty to record DD.
Re-recording by police could create confusion and weaken the probative value.
It may also violate procedural safeguards and lead to unnecessary duplication.
The police must rely on the Magistrate’s recorded DD and proceed with the investigation accordingly.
4. Rationale Behind This Principle
Magistrate’s recording of DD is impartial and judicial in nature.
It protects the dying person’s statement from influence or coercion by police.
Avoids discrepancies and contradictions that may arise from multiple recordings.
Ensures chain of evidence integrity.
Prevents the accused from challenging the DD on grounds of inconsistent versions.
5. Important Case Laws Supporting This Principle
A. Kuthuru Venkataiah vs State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC 1607
The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate is entitled to great weight.
There is no requirement for the police to record it again if already done by a Magistrate.
B. Tukaram S. Dighole vs State of Maharashtra, (2010) 4 SCC 329
The Court observed that recording of dying declaration by a Magistrate lends it greater credibility.
Police re-recording is not necessary and may affect the authenticity of evidence.
C. Dinesh Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 604
It was held that dying declarations recorded by Magistrates are entitled to full faith and credit, and courts should be cautious about contradictions arising from multiple versions.
D. Chhattisgarh High Court Ruling [Recent]
Reiterated that police officers should not re-record the dying declaration once it has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate.
Directed investigation officers to proceed on the basis of Magistrate’s recorded statement.
E. Balkan Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 1035
Observed that dying declaration must be recorded at the earliest and by the appropriate authority.
Multiple recordings dilute evidentiary value.
6. Practical Implications
Police should immediately hand over to the Magistrate the duty of recording dying declarations when possible.
Police must avoid re-recording DD to prevent challenges based on contradictions.
Investigators should focus on verifying and collecting corroborative evidence rather than duplicating statements.
Courts give preference to Magistrate-recorded DDs over those recorded by police.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Dying Declaration (DD) | Statement by person about to die about cause of death. |
| Authority to Record DD | Executive Magistrate preferred authority. |
| Police Role | Should not re-record DD if Magistrate has done so. |
| Reason | Avoid duplication, contradiction, protect evidentiary value. |
| Supporting Case Laws | Kuthuru Venkataiah, Tukaram Dighole, Dinesh Sharma, Balkan Singh. |
| Chhattisgarh HC’s Stand | Police should rely on Magistrate’s DD; no re-recording. |
8. Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity and credibility of dying declarations. Once an Executive Magistrate has recorded a dying declaration, the police must refrain from re-recording it. This ensures the statement’s authenticity, prevents unnecessary litigation arising from conflicting versions, and upholds the procedural safeguards in criminal investigations. The judicial precedent consistently supports giving primacy to Magistrate-recorded dying declarations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments