Par bi nAl iv .St at eofAssam,( 2013)2SCC 81:
21. Com mi i ngt ot hecaseathand,t hewi f e,t hef at her i nl aw and t het woot her r el at i ve shavecl ear l y st at ed t hatt hedece ased had i nf orme med t hem aboutt he name mes of t he ass ai l ant s. Not hi ng wor t h has been el i ci t ed i n t he cr oss exami mi nat i on.Theyhavedeposedi nacat egor i calmannert hatbyt het i met hey arri vedatt hepl aceofoccburr ence,t hedeceased wasi nafitst at eofheal t ht o speakandmakea s t at eme mentand,i nf act ,hedi dmakeas t at eme mentast owh who ass aul t ed hi m.Not hi ng has been sugg es t ed t ot hes e wi t nes se s about t he condi t i on oft hedeceased . shasbeen ment A i onedear l i er ,PW 4,t he doct or ,
wh who had per f or med t he post mor t em,has not been cr ossexami ned.I n t hi s backdr op,i t can saf el y be concl uded t hat t he deceased was i na consci ouss t at eandi n aposi t i on t ospeak.Thus,i ti sdi ffic ul tt oac c e ptt hat t he wi f e, t he f at her i nl aw and ot her cl ose r el at i ves woul di mpl i cat et he appel l ant accused by at t r i but i ng t he or aldyi ng decl arat i on t ot he deceased.
n t he absence of any r eal di scr epancy or mat er i al That apar t ,i cont r adi ct i on oromi ss i on and addi t i onal l y noncr ossexami nat i on oft he doct ori nt hi sr egar d makest hedyi ngdecl arat i on absol ut el ycr edi bl eand t heconvi ct i on basedon t hesame mer eal l ycannotbef aul t ed.
Madal aVenkat aNar si mhaRaov.St at eofA. P. ,( 2012)13SCC 679:
21.Theeyewi t nessaccount ,mome ment saf t ert hedi scov er y oft he cr i me i sso ov er whel mi ng, c oupl ed wi t ht he conduct of t he appel l ant ,t hat onl y one concl usi on i spossi bl ewh whi ch i st hatt hemu mur derofLal i t ha wascomm mmi t t ed by t heappe l l ant .
22. I n addi t i o n,i tmus tbeappr e c i at e dt ha te v e nLal i t hag av ev i r t ual l yady i ng decl ar at i on i n whi ch she narr at ed t he sequenceofev ent si ncl udi ng t he f act t hatt heappel l anthad hi therwi t h achut neygr i nderon herhead and ot her par t sofhe rbo dy .The r ei snor e as onatal lwhyLal i t has ho ul df al s e l yi mpl i c at e t heappel l antofsuchahei nouscri me.Lal i t ha’ sst at em me enton t hi saspectmay
bec ont r as t edwi t hhers t at e me ntont hei s sueofr ape,i nwhi c hs hedi dnots ay awo r dt oi mpl i c at et heappe l l ant .The r ei s ,t he r e f o r e ,mo r et hanar i ngoft r ut h i nt he s t at ement ma made by Lal i t ha mome ment s bef or e her deat ht o Lakshmi mi Nar ay ana,Pur nac handr aRaoandVe nkat es war aRao.
Ar unBhanudasPawarv .St at eofMahar asht r a,( 2008)11SCC 232:
25. I he or aldyi ng decl ar at i on made by t he ti s we l l s e t t l e dl a w t hatt deceasedoughtt obetr eat edwi t hcar eandcaut i on si ncet hema makeroft he nt he pr ese nt st at eme mentcannotbe subj ect ed t o any cr oss exami mi nat i on.I case,admi t t edl y ,t heal l egeddyi ngdecl arat i onhadnotbeenmadet oanydoct or ort oanyi ndependentwi t nes s,butonl yt ot hemo mot herwho,ass t at ed abov e, arr i ve d att hehospi t alonl yon t hef ol l owi ngdayatabout3. 30 p. m.when Dr . Ni t i nhad al r eadyoper at edRaj uf orhi si nj uri esandt her eaf t erhewasl yi ngon t hebed i n unconsci ouscondi t i on wi t h oxygen t ubeshavi ngbeen i nser t ed i n
T osecut i on has not br ought on r ecor d any medi cal hi s nos t r i l s .The pr cer t i ficat i on t o prove t hat af t er oper at i on t he deceas ed was i n a fit condi t i on t o make t he decl ar at i on bef or e hi s mot her . The ev i dence of al l eg ed or al dyi ng decl ar at i on by t he dece ase d Raj u t o hi s mot her PW Sundarbair el i edupon byt hepr osecut i on andaccept edbyt het r i alcour tand
n ourvi ew,wasnotcogent ,sat i sf actoryandconvi nci ngt o t heHi ghCour t ,i hol dt hatdeceasedR Ra aj u bef or ehi sdeath wasi n a fitcondi t i on t o make or aldecl ar at i on t ohi smo mother.
Dar shanaDev iv .St at eofPunj ab,1995Supp( 4)SCC 126:
Ther ei svari ancei nt hest at eme ment soft het wowi wi t nesseswi t hr egardt ot he 10. exactwor dsal l egedl yusedby t hedece ased.Accor di ngt oPW 2,t hedece ased hadst at edt hatt heappel l anthadspr i nkl edker oseneonhi m whenhewa wasl yi ng asl eepandhadbur nthi m,whi l eLachhmiDevi ,PW 1di dnotat t r i but eanysuch al lt hat st at em me entt ot hedeceased.PW 1 r ei t er at ed i n hercr ossexami nat i on “ MadanLalt ol dmewa wast hathehadbeenbur ntbyDar shanaDevibyspr i nkl i ng
k e r o s e n e” hough an or al dyi ng decl ar at i on can f or m bas i s of . Even t
convi ct i on i n a gi ven cas e, but such a dyi ng decl ar at i on has t o be t r ust wort hy and f r ee f r om ever y bl emi sh and i nspi r e confidence.The r epr oduct i on oft he exactwordsoft he oraldecl ar at i on i n such casesi s ver yi mpor t ant.Thedi ffer encei nt heexactwor dsoft hedecl arat i on i nt hi s c as ede t r ac tmat e r i al l yf r o mt hev al ueoft heor aldy i ngde c l ar at i o n.
Vi shr am v .St at eofM. P. ,1993Supp( 2)SCC274:
5.…. . PW 1whoi st hef at heroft hedece ase dandPW 5whoi snoot he rt han t he wi f e ofKamalKi shor e,one oft he dec ease d per sons,woul d be t he l ast pe r s o ns ,i ns uc h as i t uat i o n,t oi mpl i c at et heappe l l ant sf al s e l yl e av i ngoutt he r ealcul pr i t s.Bot ht hecour t sbel ow havedi scussedt heevi denceofPWs1and 5.Wehaveal soper usedt hesame.PW 1 i nt hefir sti nf ormat i on r epor ti t sel f has ment i oned aboutt he ear l i erdyi ng dec l ar at i on and has al so gi ve nt he necessary det ai l s. Not hi ng si gni ficant has been el i ci t ed i n hi s cr oss -
exami nat i on.Li ke wi se ,PW 5 depose dt hats he al so r eac hed t he pl ace of oc c ur r enc e and f ound Chandr a Shekhar l yi ng unconsc i ous and t hat he r husband KamalKi shor ewasconsci ousand on bei ngasked,het ol d hert hat t hesi xappel l ant sat t acked hi m and beathi m.Ther eaf t erKamalKi shor ewas
nt hecr ossexami nat i on shehasaffir medthesame t ake nt ot heho spi t al .I and herevi dence doesnotsufferf r om any i nfir mi t i es T orwho . he doct exami ned KamalKi shor e,on bei ngcr oss exami ned,nodoubtst at ed t hat or di nar i l yi nj ur i es f ound on t he head of Kamal Ki shor e coul d cause unconsci ousnessbuti tcoul d notposi t i vel y be sai dt hatt hey woul d have caused i mmedi at eunconsci ousness.Rel yi ngon t hi sadmi ssi on,t hel earned c o uns e ls ubmi t t e dt hati ti sno ts a f et or e l yo nt heo r a ldy i ngde c l ar at i o ns .I t mustbenot ed t hatt hedoct ordi d notcat egori cal l yst at et hatKamalKi shor e woul d hav e been unconsci ous i mmedi at el y af t err ecei ptoft he i nj ur i es and coul dnothavebeen i n aposi t i on ev en t ospeak t hatmuch.Wehavecar ef ul l y exami nedt heev i denceofPWs1and5andal sot her eas onsgi v enbybot ht he court sbel ow andwear esat i sfiedt hatnoi nt erf er encei scal l edf or .Theappeal i sa cc o r di ng l ydi s mi s s e d.
Pr akash v .St at eofM. P. ,( 1992)4SCC 225:
11.……TheHi gh Cour thasgi v en v er y convi nci ng r eas onsf oracc ept i ng t he ev i denceofAj aySi ngh asan ey e wi t nes soft hemur der ousactand wedonot findanyi nfir mi t yi nt hefindi ngmadebyt heHi gh Cour t .I nsof arast hedyi ng decl ar at i on i s concer ned,we ar ei ncl i ned t o acceptt he findi ng oft he Hi gh Courtt hatt hedeceased wasal i veatl eastupt ohal fan houraf t ert heassaul t. Hehadbee nt akent ot hehospi t alwher eher ec ei ve dsomet r eat mentf orabout 1015 mi nut es.I ti snotborneoutf r om t heevi denceoft hedoct ort hatt he i nj uri eswer esograveand t he condi t i on oft hepat i entwassocri t i calt hati t wasunl i kel yt hathecoul dmakeanydyi ngdecl ar at i on.I nt heor di nar ycour se, t hemember soft hef ami l yi ncl udi ngt hef at herwer eexpect edt oaskt hevi ct i m
ft hevi ct i m wasi na t henamesoft heassai l ant satt hefir stopport uni t yandi posi t i on t ocommuni cat e,i ti sr easonabl yexpect edt hathewoul dgi vethe nt hei ns t anc e namesoft heass ai l ant si fhehadr ecogni sedt heass ai l ant s.I caset her ei sno occasi on t ohol dt hatt hedece ased was noti n a posi t i on t o i dent i f yt heassai l ant sbecausei ti snobody’ scaset hatt hedeceased di d not know t heaccused per sons.I ti st her ef orequi t el i kel yt haton bei ngasked t he dec ease d woul d name t he assai l ant s.I nt he f act s and ci r cumst ance s oft he caset heHi gh Cour thasacc ept ed t hedyi ngdec l ar at i on and wedonott hi nk t hats uchafindi ngi sperv er seandr equi r est obei nt er f er edwi t h.Asamat t er off act ,onsecondt hought ,t hel earnedAddi t i onalSessi onsJudgehasaccept ed t he dyi ng dec l ar at i on and has c onvi ct ed Pr akash on t he basi s of dyi ng de c l ar a t i on.
Ghanashyam Dasv .St at eofAssam,( 2005)13SCC 387:
4. Themosti ncr i mi nat i ngevi dencei nt hi scasei st hedyi ngdecl arat i on made byt hedece as edt oPW 4.Af t e rut t er i ngt hewor dst hatGhanashy am “ c uthi m” t hevi ct i m becameunconsci ous.I tmayber ec al l ed t hatPW 4 waswi t ht he deceasedt i l lt heypart edcompanyt ogot ot hei rr espect i vehousesandwi t hi na
f ew mi nut es t her eaf t er ,t he i nci denthad happened.Ther ei s absol ut el y no r eason whyPW 4 woul d comef or war dt ogi veaf al seve r si on t oi mpl i cat et he accuse d.Theor aldyi ng dec l ar at i on madet o PW 4 was bel i ev ed by t het r i al cour taswel lasbyt heHi gh Cour t .I nt heFI Rl odgedwi t houtdel ay ,t heor al dyi ngdecl arat i onwasspeci fical l yment i oned.
6.The cont ent i on oft he l ear ned counse lf ort he r es pondentt hatwi t ht he magni t udeofi nj ur i est hevi ct i m suffer ed,hewoul dnothavebeeni naposi t i on t o speak out ,has been r ej ect ed by t he Hi gh Cour t .The possi bi l i t y oft he dece ase d sa yi nga f e w wor ds bef or ehebec ameunconsci ouscannotbe r ul ed outespeci al l ywhent her ei snocr ossexami nat i onoft hemedi calofficeront hi s aspect.
Di scl ai mer :The t exti scomput ergenerat ed.The user must ver i f yt he aut hent i ci t y oft heextr act ed port i on wi t ht heor i gi nali n Supr emeCour t Cases.
Par bi nAl iv .St at eofAssam,( 2013)2SCC 81:
13.Bef orewe pr oceed t o scrut i ni se t he l egalaccept abi l i t y oft he oraldyi ng decl arat i on,wet hi nk i tseeml yt or ef ert o cert ai n deci si ons i nr egard t ot he admi ssi bi l i t yand evi dent i aryval ueofadyi ng decl arat i on.I n KhushalRao v . .St andi n Mee .St St at eofBombay,Kusa v at eo fOr i s sa sal aRamakr i shan v at e o fA. P .i thasbeen hel dt hatt hel aw i swel lset t l ed t hatt heconvi ct i on can be
f ounded sol el y on t he basi s ofdyi ng decl ar at i on i ft he same i nspi r es f ul l confidence.
14.I i tSi nghv at eo fPunj ab,i nRanj .St thasbe e nhe l dt hat : 13. “ … convi ct i on can ber ecor dedon t hebasi sofadyi ngdecl arat i on al one,
i ft hes amei swho l l yr e l i abl e ,buti nt hee v e ntt he r ee xi s t sanys us pi c i o n as r egar ds t he corr ect ness or ot her wi se oft he sai d dyi ng decl arat i on,t he cour t si n arr i vi ng at t he j udgment of convi ct i on shal ll ook f or some c or r obor a t i nge v i de nc e . ” I nt hi scont ext ,wemayal sonot i cet hej udgmenti nNanhauRam v .St at eofM. P . wher ei ni thasbeen s t at ed t hatnor mal l y ,t hecour t ,i n or de rt o sat i s f yi t se l f whe t her t he dec eased was i n a fit ment al c ondi t i on t o make t he dyi ng decl arat i on,l ooksup t ot hemedi calopi ni on.Butwher et heeye wi t nesssai d
t hat t he dec eas ed was i n a fit and consci ous s t at et o make t he dyi ng de c l ar at i o n,t heme di c alo pi ni o nc anno tpr e v ai l .
15. Whi l edeal i ngwi t ht heevi denceoft hedecl ar ant ’ smi nd,t heConst i t ut i on at eo fMahar as ht r a,hasl Benc hi n Laxman v .St ai d down t hus:( SCC pp.713-
14,par a3) 3. “ Thej ur i s t i ct he or yr e g ar d i ngac c e pt abi l i t yofady i ngde c l ar at i o ni st hat
such decl arat i on i s made i n ext r emi t y ,when t he part yi s att he poi ntof deat h and when ev er y hope oft hi s wor l di sgone,when ev er y mot i v et o f al se hood i s si l ence d, and t he man i si nduc ed by t he mos t power f ul consi der at i on t o speak onl yt he t r ut h.Not wi t hst andi ng t he same,gr eat caut i on mustbe exer ci sed i n consi der i ng t he wei ghtt o be gi ve nt ot hi s speci es ofev i dence on accountoft he exi s t ence ofmany ci r cums t ance s whi c h ma y affectt hei rt r ut h.The si t uat i on i n whi c h a man i s on t he deat hbedi ssosol emnandser ene,i st her easoni nl aw t oacceptt hever aci t y ofhi sst at ement .I ti sf ort hi sreason t herequi r ement sofoat h and cr ossexami nat i on ar edi spense dwi t h.Si ncet heaccusedhasno powerofcr oss exami nat i on,t hecourt si nsi stt hatt hedyi ngdecl arat i on shoul dbeofsuch a nat ur eas t oi nspi r ef ul lconfidenceoft hecour ti ni t st r ut hf ul nessand corr ect ness.Thecour t ,howeve r ,hasal wayst obeon guardt oseet hatt he st at ement of t he dece ase d was not as a r es ul t of ei t her t ut or i ng or pr ompt i ngorapr oductofi magi nat i on.Thecour tal somustf ur t herdeci de t hatt he dece ase d was i n a fits t at e ofmi nd and had t he oppor t uni t yt o obs e r v eandi de nt i f yt heas s ai l ant .No r mal l y ,t he r e f or e ,t hec our ti no r de rt o sat i sf yi t sel fwhet hert hedeceasedwasi nafitment alcondi t i ont omaket he dyi ng dec l ar at i on l ooks up t o t he medi c al opi ni on. But wher e t he eye wi t ness esst at et hatt he dece ased was i n a fitand consci ous st at et o maket hede c l ar at i o n,t heme di c alo pi ni o n wi l lno tpr e v ai l ,no rc ani tbes ai d t hats i nc et he r ei snoce r t i fic at i o no ft hedo ct o ra st ot hefit ne s soft hemi nd oft hede c l ar a nt ,t hedy i ngde c l ar at i o ni sno tac c ept abl e .Ady i ngde c l ar at i o n can be or alor i n wr i t i ng and any adeq uat e me t hod ofc ommuni cat i on whe t her by wor ds or by s i gns or ot he r wi se wi l l suffic e pr ovi ded t he i ndi c at i oni spos i t i v eandde fini t e . ”
16. anChand v I nt hi sc ont e xt ,i twi l lbeus ef ult or e f e rt ot hede ci s i on i nPur . St at eofHar yana wher ei ni thas bee n st at ed t hata mec hani calapproac hi n
r e l y i ngupo n ady i ngde c l ar at i o nj us tbe c aus ei ti st he r ei se x t r e me l ydang e r o us andi ti st hedut yoft hecourtt oexami neadyi ngdecl ar at i onscrupul ousl ywi t h a mi cr oscopi c ey et o find out whet her t he dyi ng dec l ar at i on i s vol unt ary , t r ut hf ul ,madei n aconsc i ousst at eofmi nd and wi t houtbei ngi nfluence d by t her el at i vespr esentorbyt hei nvest i gat i ngagencywhomaybei nt er est ed i n t he succe ss ofi nve st i gat i on or whi ch may be negl i gentwhi l er ecor di ng t he dyi ngdecl arat i on.TheCourtf urt heropi nedt hat : 18.Thel “ aw i snow wel lse t t l ed t hata dyi ng decl ar at i on whi ch has been
f oundt obevol unt aryandt r ut hf ulandwhi chi sf r eef r om anydoubt scanbe t hes ol ebas i sf orc onv i c t i ngt heac c us e d. ”
17. Regardbei nghadt ot heaf oresai dpri nci pl es,weshal lpr esent l yadver thow t o wei gh t hever aci t yofan or aldyi ngdecl arat i on.Ashas been l ai d down i n byt heConst i t ut i on Bench,adyi ngdecl arat i on can beor al .Thesai d Lax man pri nci pl ehasbeenr ei t er at edbyt heConst i t ut i on Bench.Her ewemayref ert oa at eo fM. P . t woJudgeBenchdec i si on i nPrakash v .St wher ei ni thasbeenhel d
asf ol l o ws : 11.… I “ nt he or di nar y cour se ,t he member s oft he f ami l yi ncl udi ng t he
f at herwer eexpect ed t oask t hevi ct i m t henamesoft heassai l ant satt he fir stopport uni t yand i ft hevi ct i m was i n a posi t i on t ocommuni cat e,i ti s r easonabl y expect ed t hathewoul d gi vet henamesoft heassai l ant si fhe had r ecogni sed t heassai l ant s.I nt hei nst antc aset her ei sno occasi on t o hol dt hatt he dece ased was noti n a posi t i on t oi dent i f yt he assai l ant s be causei ti snobody’ scaset hatt hedec eas ed di d notknow t heac cused per sons.I ti sther ef orequi t el i kel yt haton bei ngaskedt hedeceased woul d namet heassai l ant s.I nt hef act sand ci r cumst ancesoft hecaset heHi gh Cour thasacc ept edt hedyi ngdec l ar at i on and wedonott hi nk t hatsucha findi ngi spe r v e r s eandr e qui r e st obei nt e r f e r e dwi t h. ”
18. I ti swort hyt onot et hati nt heaf oresai dcaset hi sCourthadl ai ddownt hat when i ti snotbor neoutf r om t heevi denceoft hedoct ort hatt hei nj ur i eswe r e so graveand t hecondi t i on oft hepat i entwas socri t i calt hati twasunl i kel y
t hathecoul dmakeanydyi ngdecl arat i on,t her ewasnoj ust i ficat i onorwarr ant t odi s c ar dt hec r e di bi l i t yofs uc hady i ngde c l ar a t i o n.
19.I n Dar .St thi sCourtr ef err ed t ot heevi denceof shanaDe viv at eo fPunj ab t he doct orwho had s t at ed t hatt he decease d was se mi consc i ous,hi spul se wasnotpal pabl eandhi sbl oodpr ess ur ewasnotr ecor dabl eandhadcer t i fie d t hathe was noti n a fitcondi t i on t o make a st at ementaf t ert hepol i cehad arr i vedatt hehospi t alandexpr essedt hevi ew t hatt hedeceasedcoul dnothave madean or alst at ementt hathehad been bur ntbyhi swi f e.Thus,emphasi s wasl ai dont hephys i calandment alcondi t i onoft hedece as edandt hev e r aci t y of t he t es t i mony of t he wi t nes se s who depose as r eg ar ds t he or aldyi ng de c l ar a t i o n.
20.I n Pot .St ,t hi sCo ur t ,whi l ede al i ngwi t h hakamur iSr i ni v as ul uv at eo fA. P . t hei ssuewhet herr el i anceon t hedyi ngdecl arat i on madebyt hedece ased t o PWs1,2and3t her ei ncoul dbebel i eved,obser vedt hus: “ e ason t o di s bel i ev et he dyi ng dec l ar at i on made by t he 7.We find no r deceasedt ot hewi t nessesPWs1,2and3.Theyar eal lr esi dent soft hesame vi l l age and ar e nat ur alwi t nesses t ot he dyi ng decl ar at i on made by t he dec ease d.No r eason i s assi gned,noreve n sugge st ed t o any oft he t hr ee wi t nesses,ast owhyatal lanyoft hem woul dt el lal i eandat t r i but ef al sel ya dyi ng dec l ar at i on t o t he dec ease d i mpl i cat i ng t he appel l ant accuse d. Though eac h oft het hr eewi t nes se shasbeen cr ossexami ned butt her ei s no t hi ngbr o ug hto uti nt he i rs t at e me nt st oshaket he i rv e r a c i t y . ” Wemayal so not ewi t h pr ofitt hatt heCour tdi d notacceptt hatt hei nj ur e d coul d not hav e bee ni n a consc i ous s t at e on t he gr ound t hat no suc h sugge st i on had bee n madet o anyoft hewi t nes se si ncl udi ngt hedoct orwho conduct edt hepost mor t em exami nat i onoft hedec ease d.
DYING DECLARATION
1992)2SCC 474,par a18 Pani benvsSt at eofGuj ar at ,(
( )Ther ei snei t herr ul eofl aw norofprudencet hatdyi ngdecl arat i on cannotbe i act eduponwi t houtcorr oborat i on. ( )I ft hec o ur ti ssat i s fie dt hatt hedy i ngde c l ar at i o ni st r ueand v o l unt ar yi t i i c anbas ec o nv i c t i o no ni t ,wi t ho utc o r r o bo r a t i o n. ( )Thi s Cour thas t o scr ut i ni se t he dyi ng decl ar at i on car ef ul l y and must i i i ensur et hat t he decl ar at i on i s not t he r es ul t of t ut or i ng, pr ompt i ng or i magi nat i on. The dece ase d had oppor t uni t yt o obser v e and i dent i f yt he assai l ant sandwasi nafitst at et omaket hedecl arat i on. ( r edyi ngdecl arat i on i ssuspi ci ousi tshoul dnotbeact edupon wi t hout i v)Whe c or r o bo r a t i v ee v i de nc e . v)Whe ( r et he deceas ed was unconsc i ous and c oul d ne v er make any dyi ng
de c l ar a t i o nt hee vi de nc ewi t hr e g ar dt oi ti st ober e j e c t e d. vi ( )A dyi ngdecl arat i on whi ch suffer sf r om i nfir mi t ycannotf orm t hebasi sof
c onv i c t i on. vi i ( )Mer el ybecausea dyi ngdecl arat i on doesnotcont ai nt hedet ai l sast ot he
oc cur r e nc e,i ti sno tt ober e j e ct e d. vi i i ( )Eq ual l y ,me r e l ybe c aus ei ti sa br i e fs t at e me nt ,i ti sno tt obedi s c ar de d.
Ont hecont r ary ,t heshort nessoft hest at ementi t sel fguar ant eest rut h. i x)No ( r mal l y ,t hec our ti no r de rt os at i s f yi t s e l fwhe t he rt hede c e as e dwasi na
fitment alcondi t i on t o make t he dyi ng dec l ar at i on l ooks up t ot he medi cal opi ni on.Butwher et heey ewi t nesshassai dt hatt hedeceasedwasi n afitand consci ous st at et o make t hi s dyi ng decl ar at i on,t he medi calopi ni on cannot pr e vai l . ( r et hepr osecut i on ver si on di ffer sf r om t hever si on asgi veni nt hedyi ng x)Whe decl arat i on,t hesai ddecl arat i oncannotbeact edupon.…’
•
St at eofRaj ast hanv .Shr av anRam,( 2013)12SCC255:
12 .Thi Ar v i ndSi ngh v at eo fBi ha r hi sCour ti n .St w l ede al i ngwi t ht hecaseof or a ldy i ngde cl ar a t i ons t at e dasf ol l o ws : “ Dyi ng dec l ar at i ons s hal l hav e t o be deal t wi t h car e and caut i on. Corr oborat i on i snotessent i albuti ti sexpedi entt ohavet hesame,i n order t o st r engt hen t he evi dent i aryval ue ofdecl arat i on.I ndependentwi t nesses maynotbe avai l abl ebutt her eshoul d bepr opercar eand caut i on i nt he mat t erofaccept anceofsuchast at ementast r ust wort hyevi dence. ” sCour ti n Bhaj .St whi l e de al i ng wi t h admi s s i bi l i t yo f 13.Thi j uv at eo fM. P . dy i ngde c l ar at i onhe l dasf o l l o ws : 26.Thel “ a wi swe l ls e t t l e dt hatady i ngde c l ar a t i oni sadmi s s i bl ei ne v i de nc e
and t he admi ssi bi l i t yi sf ounded on t he pr i nci pl e ofnecessi t y .A dyi ng de c l ar at i o n,i ff o undr e l i abl e ,c an f o r mt hebas i so fac onv i c t i o n.A c o ur to f f act si snotexcl udedf r om act i ngupon an uncorr obor at eddyi ngdecl arat i on f orfindi ngconvi ct i on.Thedyi ngdecl arat i on,asapi eceofevi dence,st ands on t hesamef oot i ngasanyot herpi eceofevi dence.I thast obej udgedand appre ci at ed i n l i ght of t he sur r oundi ng ci r cums t ance s and i t s wei ght det ermi nedbyref er encet ot hepri nci pl egover ni ngt hewei ghi ngofevi dence. I fi n agi ven caseapart i cul ardyi ngdecl arat i on suffer sf r om anyi nfirmi t y , ei t herofi t sown orasdi scl osedbyt heot here vi denceadducedi nt hecase ort he ci r cumst ance s comi ng t oi t s not i ce ,t he cour tmay ,as a r ul e of pr udence,l ook f orcorr obor at i on and i ft hei nfir mi t i esar esuch as woul d r endera dyi ng decl ar at i on so i nfir m t hati tpri cks t he consci enceoft he cour t ,t he same may be r ef use dt o be acc ept ed as f or mi ng basi s oft he c onv i c t i on. ”
v.St Govi ndar aj u at e,2012 4SCC 722 ot hesec ond submi ss i on r ai se d on behal foft heappel l ant 23.Now,wecomet t hatt hemat er i alwi t nes shasnotbeen exami ned and t her el i ancecannotbe pl ac e dupo nt hes ol et e s t i mo nyoft hepo l i c ewi t ne s s( e y e wi t ne s s ) . ti sa set t l ed pr oposi t i on ofl aw ofevi dencet hati ti snott henumberof 24.I wi t nesses t hatmat t er s buti ti st he subs t ance.I ti s al s o notnecessar yt o
exami nea l ar genumberofwi t nes se si ft hepr ose cut i on can bri nghomet he l uManj hiv gui l toft heaccusedevenwi t hal i mi t ednumberofwi t nesses.I nLal . St at e ofJhar khand, t hi s Cour t had cl assi fied t he or al t es t i mony of t he
wi t nessesi nt ot hr eecat e gor i es: a)whol ( l yr el i abl e ;
( l yunr e l i abl e ;and b)whol c ( )ne i t he rwhol l yr e l i abl enorwhol l yunr e l i abl e .
I nt het hi r dcat egoryofwi t nesses,t hecourthast obecaut i ousandseei ft he st at ementofsuch wi t nessi scorr oborat ed,ei t herbyt heot herwi t nessesorby ot herdocument aryore xper tevi dence. 25.Eq ual l y wel lset t l ed i st he pr oposi t i on ofl aw t hatwher et her ei s a sol e
wi t nesst ot hei nc i dent ,hi se vi dencehast obeac cept edwi t hcaut i onandaf t er t est i ngi tont het ouchst oneofevi dencet ender edbyotherwi t nessesorevi dence ot herwi serecor ded.Theevi denceofa sol ewi t nessshoul d becogent ,r el i abl e and mustessent i al l yfiti nt ot hechai n ofevent st hathavebeen st at ed byt he pr ose cut i on. When t he pr ose cut i on r el i es upon t he t es t i mony of a sol e ey ewi t ness ,t hen such evi dence has t o be whol l yr el i abl e and t r ust wor t hy . Pre se nce ofsuch wi t nes s att he occ ur r ence shoul d notbe doubt f ul .I ft he evi denceoft hesol ewi t nessi si n confli ctwi t ht heot herwi t nesses,i tmaynot be saf et o make suc h as t at ementas a f oundat i on oft he conv i ct i on oft he accused.Thesear et hef ew pr i nci pl eswhi ch t hecourthasst at ed consi st ent l y andwi t hcert ai nt y . er encei nt hi sr egar dcan bemadet o osephv .St andTi 26.Ref J at eo fKe r al a ka .St Ev eni nJhapsaKabar .St ,t hi sCo ur tt o okt he Ram v at eofM. P . iv at eofBi har vi e w t hat i ft he pr esence ofa wi t ness i s doubt f ul ,i t become sac ase of convi ct i on based on t het est i monyofasol i t arywi t ness.Ther ei s,however ,no bari n basi ngt heconv i ct i on on t het es t i monyofasol i t ar ywi t nesssol ongas t hes ai dwi t ne s si sr e l i abl eandt r us t wo r t hy . 27.I JhapsaKabar i n t hi sCour tnot edt hef actt hatsi mpl ybecauseoneoft he
wi t nesses( af our t eeny ear ol dboy)di dnotnamet hewi f eoft hede ceasedi nt he f ardbeyan,i twoul d noti n anywayaffectt het est i monyoft heeyewi t nessi . e.
t hewi f eoft hedece ased,whohadgi ve nagr aphi caccountoft heat t ackonher husbandandherbr ot her i nl aw byt heaccuse dper sons.Wher et hes t at ement ofan eyewi t nessi sf ound t o ber el i abl e,t rust wort hyand consi st entwi t ht he cour seofevent s,t heconvi ct i oncan bebasedonhersol et est i mony .Ther ei sno bar i n basi ng t he convi c t i on ofan acc us ed on t he t es t i mony ofa sol i t ar y wi t nessasl ongast hes ai dwi t ne ssi sr e l i abl eandt r us t wor t hy . 28.I nt hepr e s e ntc as e ,t hes ol ee y e wi t ne s si ss t at e dt obeapo l i c eoffic e ri . e .
PW 1.Theent i r ecasehi ngesupon t het rust wort hi ness,r el i abi l i t yorot herwi se of t he t es t i mony of t hi s wi t ness . The cont ent i on r ai sed on behal f oft he appel l anti st hatt he pol i ce officer ,bei ng t he sol e ey ewi t ness,woul d be an i nt er est ed wi t ness,and i nt hatsi t uat i on,t he possi bi l i t y ofa pol i ce officer f al sel yi mpl i cat i ngi nnocentper sonscannotberul edout . 29.The r e f o r e ,t hefir s tq ue s t i o nt hatar i s e sf o rc ons i de r a t i o ni swhe t he rapo l i c e
o ffic e rc a n beas o l ewi t ne s s .I fs o,t he nwi t hpar t i c ul arr e f e r e nc et ot hef ac t sof t hepr ese ntcase,wher eheal onehadwi t ness edt heoccur r enceaspert hecase o ft hepr o s ec ut i o n. 30.I tcannotbest at ed asar ul et hatapol i ceofficercan orcannotbea sol e
eyewi t nessi n acri mi nalcase.I twi l lal waysdepend upon t hef act sofagi ven case.I ft he t est i mony ofs uch a wi t ness i sr el i abl e,t r ust wort hy ,cogentand dul y cor r obor at ed by ot her wi t nes se s or admi ss i bl e ev i dence ,t hen t he st at ementofsuchwi t nesscannotbedi scar dedonl yon t hegr oundt hathei sa pol i ceofficerandmayhavesomei nt er esti nsuccessoft hecase.I ti sonl ywhen hi si nt er esti nt hesuccessoft hecasei smot i vat ed by over zeal ousnesst o an ext entofhi si nvol vi ng i nnocentpeopl e;i nt hatevent ,no cr edi bi l i t y can be at t achedt ot hest at ementofsuchwi t ness. 31.Thi r j aPr as ad sCour ti n Gi whi l epar t i c ul ar l yr e f e r r i ngt ot hee v i de nc eo fa
pol i ceofficersai dt hati ti s nott hel aw t hatpol i cewi t nessesshoul d notbe r el i edupon andt hei revi dencecannotbeaccept edunl essi ti scorr oborat edi n mat er i alpart i cul arsbyot heri ndependentevi dence.Thepr esumpt i on appl i es asmuchi nf avourofapol i ceofficerasanyot herper son.Ther ei sal sonorul e ofl aw whi chl aysdown t hatnoconvi ct i on can ber ecor dedon t het es t i monyof apol i ceofficerev eni fsuchevi dencei sot herwi ser el i abl eandt rust wort hy.The rul eofprudencemayr equi r emorecaref ulscr ut i nyoft hei revi dence.I fsucha
pr e s umpt i o ni sr a i s e dag ai ns tt hepo l i c eoffic e r swi t ho ute x c e pt i o n,i twi l lbean at t i t udewhi chcoul dnei t herdocredi tt ot hemagi st r acynorgoodt othepubl i c, i tc ano nl ybr i ngdo wnt hepr e s t i g eoft hepo l i c eadmi ni s t r at i o n.
•
Dar shanaDev iv .St at eofPunj ab,1995Supp( 4)SCC126:
10. Ther ei svari ancei nt hest at ement soft het wowi t nesseswi t hr egardt ot he exactwor dsal l egedl yusedby t hedece ased.Accor di ngt oPW 2,t hedece ased hadst at edt hatt heappel l anthadspr i nkl edker oseneonhi m whenhewasl yi ng l eLachhmiDevi ,PW 1di dnotat t r i but eanysuch asl eepandhadbur nthi m,whi st at ementt ot hedeceased.PW 1 r ei t er at ed i n hercr ossexami nat i on “ al lt hat MadanLalt ol dmewast hathehadbeenbur ntbyDar shanaDevibyspr i nkl i ng
.Event hough an oraldyi ngdecl arat i on can f orm basi sofconvi ct i on k e r o s e n e” i n a gi ve n case,butsuch a dyi ngdecl ar at i on hast obet r ust wort hyand f r ee f r om ever ybl emi shandi nspi r econfidence.Ther epr oduct i onoft heexactwor ds oft heor aldecl arat i on i n such casesi sver yi mport ant .Thedi ffer encei nt he exactwordsoft hedecl arat i on i nt hi scasedet r actmat eri al l yf r om t heval ueof t heo r aldy i ngde c l ar a t i on.
•
Pr akashv .St at eofM. P. ,( 1992)4SCC225:
11.Af t ergi vi ng ouranxi ousconsi der at i on t ot hef act sand ci r cumst ancesof t he cas e and t he ar gument s advanced by t he c ounse lf ort he par t i esand j udgmentdel i v er edbot h byt heAddi t i onalSessi onsJudgeandt heHi gh Cour t ofMadhyaPr adesh,i tappearst oust hatt hef at ali nj uri eshadbeeni nfli ct edby Pr akash wi t ht hegupt i .Thegupt iwasrec over edatt hei nst anceoft heaccused and such r ecov er ywasnotot her wi sepossi bl ei ft heaccusedhi msel fhad not assi st edf orsuchr ecover yoft hegupt i .Thesai dgupt iwasst ai nedwi t hhuman bl oodandnor e as onabl ee xpl anat i onhasbee ngi v enbyacc us edf orsuc hbl ood st ai n.Thei nj ur i esf oundon t heper son oft hedeceasedcoul dbei nfli ct edbya g upt iandc o mpl i c i t yofPr akas hi ni nfli c t i ngt hef at ali nj ur i e sbygupt ihasbe e n cor r obor at edbyt heeye wi t ness .Ther emaybesomemi nordi scr epanci esi nt he evi denceoft heeyewi t nessbutsof arast hecompl i ci t yofPr akashi sconcerned,
t hede po s i t i o nso ft hee y e wi t ne s s e swe r ec ons i s t e nt .I n di s c ar di ngt hee v i de nc e of t he br ot her of t he dece ase d namel y Aj ay Si ngh t he l ear ned Addi t i onal Ses si onsJudgewasi nfluence dbyt het enderageofAj ay( about14 ye ar s)and wasoft hevi e wt hathewasl i kel yt obet ut or ed.Wedonott hi nkt hataboyof about14year sofagecannotgi veapr operaccountoft hemur derofhi sbr ot her i fhehasan occ asi ont owi t nes st hesameandsi mpl ybec auset hewi t nes swas aboyof14yearsi twi l lnotbepr opert oassumet hathei sl i kel yt obet ut ored. TheHi ghCour thasgi v env er yc onvi nc i ngr easonsf oracc ept i ngt heevi denceof Aj ay Si ngh as an e ye wi t ness oft he mur der ous ac tand we do notfind any i nfir mi t yi nt he findi ng made by t he Hi gh Cour t .I nsof ar as t he dyi ng
decl arat i oni sconcerned,wear ei ncl i nedt oacceptt hefindi ngoft heHi gh Cour tt hatt he deceased wasal i ve atl eastup t o hal fan houraf t ert he as saul t . He had been t aken t ot he hospi t alwher e he r ecei ved some t r eat mentf orabout1015 mi nut es.I ti snotborneoutf r om t heevi dence oft he doct ort hatt he i nj ur i eswer e so gr ave and t he condi t i on oft he pat i entwassocri t i calt hati twasunl i kel yt hathecoul d makeany dyi ng decl ar at i on.I nt heordi narycour se,t hemembersoft hef ami l yi ncl udi ng t hef at herwer eexpect ed t oaskthevi ct i mt henamesoft heassai l ant sat t hefir stopport uni t yand i ft hevi ct i m wasi n aposi t i on t ocommuni cat e, i ti sr easonabl yexpectedthathewoul dgi vethenamesoft heassai l ant si f he had r ecogni sed t he assai l ants. I n t he i nst ance cas et her ei s no occasi on t o hol dt hatt he deceased wasnoti n a posi t i on t oi dent i f yt he ass ai l ant sbecausei ti snobody’ scaset hatt hedeceased di dnotknow t he accused per sons.I ti st her ef ore qui t el i kel yt hat on bei ng asked t he deceased woul d name t he assai l ant s.I nt he f act sand ci r cumst ancesof t hecasetheHi ghCour thasaccept edt hedyi ngdecl ar at i on andwedonot t hi nkt hats uch afindi ngi spervers eandr equi r est obei nt erf er edwi t h .As amat t eroff act ,onsecondt hought ,t hel earnedAddi t i onalSessi onsJudgehas accept edt hedyi ngdecl arat i onandhasconvi ct edPr akashont hebasi sofdyi ng de c l ar at i o n.Thei nj ur i e si nfli c t e dbyPr akas hwe r ev e r ys e r i o uso nv i t alpar t so f t he body causi ng deat h oft he dec ease d wi t hi n a ve r y shor tt i me.I n such ci r cumst ance s, c onvi ct i on under Sec t i on 302 I PC and se nt ence of l i f e i mpr i sonmentoft heaccusedPr akash i sj ust i fiedandnoi nt er f er encei scal l ed
f or .I nourvi ew,t heHi gh Courthast akenaveryr easonabl evi ew i n convi ct i ng t heot heraccuse d namel yShi vNar ayan underSec t i on 326 r ead wi t h Sec t i on 34 I PC and hasconsi der edhi scasewi t h suc h sy mpat hyast hesai d acc use d dese rv edbysent enci nghi mt oi mpr i sonmentf ort heper i odal r eadyunder gone by hi m,f or an offence unde r Sec t i on 326 r ead wi t h Se ct i on 34 I PC.We, t her ef orefindnor easont oi nt erf er ewi t ht heconvi ct i on ort hesent encepassed agai ns tt he acc use d Shi v Nar ay an. The appeal st her ef or ef ai l and ar e di smi ss ed.Thebai lbond oft heaccuse d Prakash i sdi sc har ge d and hewoul d sur r enderandser veoutt hesent ence.
•
Wai khom Yai ma Si ngh v .St at eofMani pur ,( 2011)13 SCC 125:
19. I ti sal sot obeseent hatt hedeceased wasveryser i ousl yi nj ur ed,somuch sot hataccordi ngt ot hewi t nesses,hedi edi mmedi at el yaf t eral l egedl ymaki ng t hesai d dyi ngdecl arat i on,t het i meofwhi ch i snotfixed by t hepr osecut i on. Themos ti mpor t antci r cums t anceaboutt hi sdyi ngde cl ar at i oni st hat ,fir s t l y ,i t i sor alandsecondl y ,t her ei snomedi calevi dencesuggest i ngt hatt hedeceased wasi nafitme di calcondi t i ont omakesuc hadyi ngdecl ar at i on.
20. Ther ecanbenodi sput et hatt hedyi ngdecl ar at i oncan bet hesol ebasi sf or convi ct i on,howev er ,such a dyi ng decl ar at i on has t o bepr ove dt o bewhol l y r el i abl e,vol unt aryandt rut hf ulandf urt hert hatt hemakert her eofmustbei n afitmedi calcondi t i on t omakei t .Theoraldyi ngdecl arat i on i saweakki ndof evi dence,wher et he exactwor ds ut t er ed by t he dece ased ar e notav ai l abl e, part i cul arl ybecauseoft hef ai l ur eofmemoryoft hewi t nesseswhoaresai dt o havehear di t .I nt hepr esentcaseal so,t heexactwordsar enotavai l abl e.They di fferf r om wi t nes st o wi t nes s.Some wi t nes se s sa y aboutt he name oft he vi l l ageoft heappel l anthavi ngbeen ut t er ed byt hede cease d and s omeot her s do not .Fur t her ,Dr .Ni ngombam Shyamj aiSi ngh ( PW 12)wasal sonotcr oss exami nedbyt hePubl i cPr osecut ori nt hi scaseaboutt hemedi calcondi t i on of t hedece asedandf ur t herf actast owhet herhewasi n afitcondi t i on t omake anyst at ement .
•
Ar unBhanudasPawarv .St at eofMahar asht r a,( 2008)11SCC232:
25.I ti swel l set t l edl aw t hatt heoraldyi ngdecl arat i on madebyt hedeceased oughtt o be t r eat ed wi t h car eand caut i on si ncet hemakeroft hest at ement cannotbesubj ect edt oanycr ossexami nat i on.I nt hepr esentcase,admi t t edl y , t he al l eg ed dyi ng decl ar at i on had notbee n made t o any doct or or t o any i ndependentwi t ness ,butonl yt ot hemot herwho,asst at edabove ,arr i ve d at t hehospi t alonl yon t hef ol l owi ngdayatabout3. 30 p. m.when Dr .Ni t i n had al r eadyoper at edRaj uf orhi si nj uri esandt her eaf t erhewasl yi ngont hebedi n unconsci ouscondi t i on wi t h oxygen t ubeshavi ngbeen i nser t edi n hi snost r i l s. Thepr osecut i on hasnotbr oughton r ecor d anymedi calcer t i ficat i on t opr ov e t hataf t eroper at i on t hedeceased wasi nafitcondi t i on t omaket hedecl arat i on bef or e hi s mot her .The ev i dence of al l eged or aldyi ng dec l ar at i on by t he dec ease dRaj ut ohi smot herPW Sundar bair el i eduponbyt hepr ose cut i onand accept ed by t het r i alcour tand t heHi gh Cour t ,i n ourvi ew,wasnotcogent , sat i sf act oryandconvi nci ngt ohol dt hatdeceasedRaj u bef orehi sdeathwasi n afitcondi t i ont omakeoraldecl arat i ont ohi smot her .
•
St at e( Del hiAdmn. )v .Laxman Kumar ,( 1985)4 SCC 476
47.MrGar gappear i ngf ort heappel l ant si n Cr i mi nalAppeal94 of1984,had emphat i cal l yr el i ed upon t he obser vat i ons oft he Judi ci alCommi t t ee i nt he endr aKumarGhos hv ngEmper or c as eofBar .Ki 6,andcont endedt hati nvi ew of
t he f actt hatSubhash st ood and wai t ed exhi bi t i ng a conductofi ndi ffer ence when pos i t i v eact i on f orhe l pt o Sudha was war r ant ed,hemus tbei mput ed wi t hs uffic i entmot i v eandber anke datparwi t ht heacc us edpe r sons.Wear e, however ,pr eparedt ogi vehi mt hebenefitofdoubtt r eat i nghi scaset obeont he bor der l i ne .Hi sacqui t t albyt heHi gh Cour t ,t her ef or e ,shal lnotbei nt er f e r ed wi t h.Asf arast hemo t he r i nl aw i sc onc er ned,t heposi t i on i sv er ydi ffer e nt . Sudhai nherdyi ngdec l ar at i onsmadecont empor aneousl yasdeposedt obyt he wi t nesseshads t at e dt hatker osenehadbee n pour edbyt hemot he r i nl aw and firehad al sobee nl i tby her .Thi shasbee nr epeat ed by hermor et han once bef or es her eac hedt hehospi t alexceptt hats heas si gne dt hel i ght i ngoffir et o
We have al r eady deal twi t ht hi s aspectoft he mat t erand herhusband .
have come t ot he concl usi on t hat t hough we woul d not have been pr epar edt obaset heconvi ct i on on t heor aldyi ngdecl ar at i onsal one,such dyi ngdecl arat i ons,i n ouropi ni on,werenott obet otal l yr ej ect ed andt he samecan beusedascor r oborat i vemat er i al .
This extract is taken from State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Savita, (2013) 12 SCC 663, at page 671 :
18. Section
32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that when a statement, written or verbal, is made by a erson as to the ca!se of his
death, or as to any of the circ!mstances of the transaction which res!lted in his death, in cases in which the ca!se of that erson"s death comes into #!estion, s!ch statement is relevant$ %ence, E&ts$ ' and '1* are relevant for decidin+ as to what was the e&act ca!se of the death of the deceased in this case$ n this case, E&ts$ ' and '1* were also corroborated by both circ!mstantial evidence re+ardin+ the recovery of lastic can with some kerosene oil, b!rnt ieces of saree, blo!se and ban+les and broken matchsticks from the lace of occ!rrence as well as the direct evidence of '- 2, '- 3, '- and '- 8, who had seen the resondent comin+ o!t of the room where the incident took lace$ n o!r view, therefore, the %i+h .o!rt co!ld not have ac#!itted the resondent by the im!+ned /!d+ment$
This extract is taken from Shudhakar v. State of M.P., (2012) 7 SCC 6!, at page 578 :
16. -e
may, now, refer to some of the /!d+ments of this .o!rt in re+ard to the admissibility and evidentiary val!e of a dyin+ declaration$ n Bhajju v$ State of M.P.0 this .o!rt clearly stated that Section 32 of the Evidence Act was an e&cetion to the +eneral r!le a+ainst admissibility of hearsay evidence$ .la!se (1) of Section 32 makes the statement of the deceased admissible, which has been +enerally described as dyin+ declaration$ he .o!rt, in no !ncertain terms, held that (S.. $ 33, ara 2) 424$ 5 t cannot be laid down as an absol!te r!le of law that the dyin+ declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction !nless it is corroborated by other evidence$6 he dyin+ declaration, if fo!nd reliable, co!ld form the basis of conviction$ his rincile has also earlier been stated by this .o!rt in Surinder Kumar v$ State of Haryana wherein the .o!rt, while statin+ the above rincile, on facts and beca!se of the fact that the dyin+ declaration in the said case was fo!nd to be shro!ded by s!sicio!s circ!mstances and no witness in s!ort thereof had been e&amined, ac#!itted the acc!sed$ %owever, the .o!rt observed that when a dyin+ declaration is tr!e and vol!ntary, there is no imediment in basin+ the conviction on s!ch a declaration, witho!t corroboration$ 17. n Chirra Shivraj v$ State of A.P.7 the .o!rt e&ressed a ca!tion that a mechanical aroach in relyin+ !on the dyin+ declaration /!st beca!se it is there, is e&tremely dan+ero!s$ he co!rt has to e&amine a dyin+ declaration scr!!lo!sly with a microscoic eye to find o!t whether the dyin+ declaration is vol!ntary, tr!thf!l, made in a conscio!s state of mind and witho!t bein+ infl!enced by other ersons and where these in+redients are satisfied, the .o!rt e&ressed the view that it cannot be said that on the sole basis of a dyin+ declaration, the order of conviction co!ld not be assed$ 18. n Laxman2, the .o!rt while dealin+ with the ar+!ment that the dyin+ declaration m!st be recorded by a a+istrate and the certificate of
fitness was an essential feat!re, made the followin+ observations$ he .o!rt answered both these #!estions as follows (S.. $ 7131, ara 3) 43$ he /!ristic theory re+ardin+ accetability of a dyin+ declaration is that s!ch declaration is made in e&tremity, when the arty is at the oint of death and when every hoe of this world is +one, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is ind!ced by the most owerf!l consideration to seak only the tr!th$ otwithstandin+ the same, +reat ca!tion m!st be e&ercised in considerin+ the wei+ht to be +iven to this secies of evidence on acco!nt of the e&istence of many circ!mstances which may affect their tr!th$ he sit!ation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accet the veracity of his statement$ t is for this reason the re#!irements of oath and crosse&amination are disensed with$ Since the acc!sed has no ower of crosse&amination, the co!rts insist that the dyin+ declaration sho!ld be of s!ch a nat!re as to insire f!ll confidence of the co!rt in its tr!thf!lness and correctness$ he co!rt, however, has always to be on +!ard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a res!lt of either t!torin+ or romtin+ or a rod!ct of ima+ination$ he co!rt also m!st f!rther decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the oort!nity to observe and identify the assailant$ ormally, therefore, the co!rt in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dyin+ declaration looks ! to the medical oinion$ 9!t where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscio!s state to make the declaration, the medical oinion will not revail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dyin+ declaration is not accetable$ A dyin+ declaration can be oral or in writin+ and any ade#!ate method of comm!nication whether by words or by si+ns or otherwise will s!ffice rovided the indication is ositive and definite$ n most cases, however, s!ch statements are made orally before death ens!es and is red!ced to writin+ by someone like a a+istrate or a doctor or a olice officer$ -hen it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the resence of a a+istrate absol!tely necessary, altho!+h to ass!re a!thenticity it is !s!al to call a a+istrate, if available for recordin+ the statement of a man abo!t to die$ here is no re#!irement of law that a dyin+ declaration m!st necessarily be made to a a+istrate and when s!ch statement is recorded by a a+istrate there is no secified stat!tory form for s!ch recordin+$ .onse#!ently, what evidential val!e or wei+ht has to be attached to s!ch statement necessarily deends on the facts and circ!mstances of each artic!lar case$ -hat is essentially re#!ired is that the erson who records a dyin+ declaration m!st be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind$ -here it is roved by the testimony of the a+istrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even witho!t e&amination by the doctor the declaration can be acted !on
rovided the co!rt !ltimately holds the same to be vol!ntary and tr!thf!l$ A certification by the doctor is essentially a r!le of ca!tion and therefore the vol!ntary and tr!thf!l nat!re of the declaration can be established otherwise$6 20. he
4dyin+ declaration6 is the last statement made by a erson at a sta+e when he is in serio!s arehension of his death and e&ects no chances of his s!rvival$ At s!ch time, it is e&ected that a erson will seak the tr!th and only the tr!th$ ormally in s!ch sit!ations the co!rts attach the intrinsic val!e of tr!thf!lness to s!ch statement$ :nce s!ch statement has been made vol!ntarily, it is reliable and is not an attemt by the deceased to cover ! the tr!th or falsely imlicate a erson, then the co!rts can safely rely on s!ch dyin+ declaration and it can form the basis of conviction$ ore so, where the version +iven by the deceased as dyin+ declaration is s!orted and corroborated by other rosec!tion evidence, there is no reason for the co!rts to do!bt the tr!thf!lness of s!ch dyin+ declaration$ Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user "ust verif the authenticit of the extracted portion !ith the original in "upreme #ourt #ases.
Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user "ust verif the authenticit of the extracted portion !ith the original in "upreme #ourt #ases.
This extract is taken from Rafi#ue v. State of $.P., (2013) 12 SCC 121, at page 1$1 :
23. After
considerin+ the above le+al rinciles, this .o!rt has set down the followin+ si& tests to be alied for relyin+ !on a material statement as a dyin+ declaration (Kusha !ao "ase2, A; $ 282<, ara 1) 4#$$ :n a review of the relevant rovisions of the Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different %i+h .o!rts in ndia and in this .o!rt, we have come to the concl!sion, in a+reement with the oinion of the =!ll 9ench3 of the adras %i+h .o!rt, aforesaid, %#& that it "annot 'e aid do(n as an a'soute rue of a( that a dyin) de"aration "annot form the soe 'asis of "onvi"tion uness it is "orro'orated* %2& that ea"h "ase must 'e determined on its o(n fa"ts +ee,in) in vie( the "ir"umstan"es in (hi"h the dyin) de"aration (as made* %3& that it "annot 'e aid do(n as a )enera ,ro,osition that a dyin) de"aration is a (ea+er +ind of eviden"e than other ,ie"es of eviden"e* %4& that a dyin) de"aration stands on the same footin) as another ,ie"e of eviden"e and has to 'e jud)ed in the i)ht of surroundin) "ir"umstan"es and (ith referen"e to the ,rin"i,es )overnin) the (ei)hin) of eviden"e* %-& that a dyin) de"aration (hi"h has 'een re"orded 'y a "om,etent Ma)istrate in the
,ro,er manner that is to say in the form of /uestions and ans(ers and as far as ,ra"ti"a'e in the (ords of the ma+er of the de"aration stands on a mu"h hi)her footin) than a dyin) de"aration (hi"h de,ends u,on ora testimony (hi"h may suffer from a the infirmities of human memory and human "hara"ter* and %$& that in order to test the reia'iity of a dyin) de"aration the Court has to +ee, in vie( the "ir"umstan"es i+e the o,,ortunity of the dyin) man for o'servation for exam,e (hether
there was s!fficient li+ht if the crime was committed at ni+ht> whether the caacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been imaired at the time he was makin+ the statement, by circ!mstances beyond his control> that the statement has been consistent thro!+ho!t if he had several oort!nities of makin+ a dyin+ declaration aart from the official record of it> and that the statement had been made at the earliest oort!nity and was not the res!lt of t!torin+ by interested arties$6 (emhasis s!lied) 24. -e
also wish to add that as on date, there is no stat!tory rescrition as to in what manner or the roced!re to be followed for recordin+ a dyin+ declaration to fall within the fo!r corners of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act$ he resence of the a+istrate> certification of the doctor as to the mental or the hysical stat!s of the erson makin+ the declaration, were all develoed by /!dicial rono!ncements$ As has been reeatedly stated in vario!s decisions, it will have to be fo!nd o!t whether in the facts and circ!mstances of any case the reliance laced !on by the rosec!tion on a statement alle+ed to have been made by the deceased rior to his death can be acceted as a dyin+ declaration, will deend !on the facts and circ!mstances that e&isted at the time of makin+ the statement$ n that case it wo!ld mainly deend !on the date and time vis?vis the occ!rrence when the statement was alle+ed to have been made, the lace at which it was made, the erson to whom the said statement was made, the se#!ence of events, which led the erson concerned to make the statement, the hysical and mental condition of the erson who made the statement, the co+ency with which any s!ch statement was made, the attendin+ circ!mstances, whether throw any s!sicion as to the fact!m of the statement said to have been made or any other factor e&istin+ in order to contradict the statement said to have been made as claimed by the rosec!tion, the ne&!s of the erson who made the statement to the alle+ed crime and the arties involved in the crime, the circ!mstance which made the erson to come forward with the statement and last b!t not the least, whether the said statement f!lly s!orts the case of the rosec!tion$ 25. n this conte&t, we can also make a reference to a decision of this .o!rt in Chero,ai Cheimina'i Sahe' v$ State of A.P.8, where it was held that it was not absol!tely mandatory that in every case a dyin+ declaration
sho!ld be recorded only by a a+istrate$ he said osition was reiterated in 0han Sin)h v$ State of Haryana < wherein it was held that neither Section 32 of the Evidence Act nor Section 12(2) .r'., mandate that the dyin+ declaration has to be recorded by a desi+nated or artic!lar erson and that it was only by virt!e of the develoment of law and the +!idelines settled by the /!dicial rono!ncements that it is normally acceted that s!ch declaration wo!ld be recorded by a a+istrate or by a doctor to eliminate the chances of any do!bt or false imlication by the rosec!tion in the co!rse of investi+ation$ a recent decision of this .o!rt in Sri Bha)(an v$ State of 1.P.1*, to which one of !s was a arty, the .o!rt dealt with more or less an identical sit!ation and held as !nder in aras 21 and 22 42#$ As far as the imlication of Section 12(2) .r'. is concerned, as a roosition of law, !nlike the e&ceted circ!mstances !nder which Section 11 statement co!ld be relied !on, as ri+htly contended by the learned Senior .o!nsel for the resondent, once the said statement tho!+h recorded !nder Section 11 .r'. ass!mes the character of dyin+ declaration fallin+ within the fo!r corners of Section 32(1) of Evidence Act, then whatever credence that wo!ld aly to a declaration +overned by Section 32(1) sho!ld a!tomatically deem to aly in all force to s!ch a statement tho!+h was once recorded !nder Section 11 .r'.$ he above statement of law wo!ld res!lt in a osition that a !rorted recorded statement !nder Section 11 of a victim havin+ re+ard to the s!bse#!ent event of the death of the erson makin+ the statement who was a victim wo!ld enable the rosec!tin+ a!thority to rely !on the said statement havin+ re+ard to the nat!re and content of the said statement as one of dyin+ declaration as deemin+ it and fallin+ !nder Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and thereby commend all the credence that wo!ld be alicable to a dyin+ declaration recorded and claimed as s!ch$ 26. n
Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user "ust verif the authenticit of the extracted portion !ith the original in "upreme #ourt #ases.
Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user "ust verif the authenticit of the extracted portion !ith the original in "upreme #ourt #ases.