Dying declaration is a significant form of evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving homicides or suspicious deaths. It refers to the statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, regarding the cause and circumstances leading to their impending death. The admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations are recognized under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

According to the Indian Evidence Act, a dying declaration is considered relevant and admissible as evidence if the following conditions are met:

• Statement by the person: The declaration must be made by the person who is in a dying condition. It can be oral, written, or through gestures, depending on the person’s ability to communicate.

• Contemplation of impending death: The declaration should pertain to the cause of the person’s death or the circumstances leading to their death. It must be made under the belief that death is imminent.

• Absence of hope of recovery: The person making the statement should have no hope of recovery at the time of making the declaration.

• Absence of undue influence: The statement should not be the result of any coercion, threat, or inducement by any person.

Dying declarations are given significant weight in legal proceedings as they are considered to be made in extremis, in a state of solemn reflection, without any motive to falsely implicate or exonerate someone. They are often viewed as a powerful piece of evidence because the person making the declaration has no reason to lie or fabricate information.

Several Supreme Court cases have further clarified the importance and admissibility of dying declarations. Some notable cases include:

• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable, voluntary, and consistent with other material evidence.

• Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999): The Court stated that a dying declaration, even if it is uncorroborated, can be sufficient to convict the accused if it is found to be trustworthy, consistent, and free from any suspicion of tampering or coercion.

• Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992): The Court emphasized that the credibility and reliability of a dying declaration depend on various factors such as the mental and physical condition of the declarant, the opportunity for the declarant to observe and identify the accused, and the absence of any motive to falsely implicate someone.

• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958): The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence, is truthful, and is consistent with other evidence on record.
• Munnu Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976): The Court observed that the court should exercise caution while relying on a dying declaration and ensure that it is free from any possibility of tutoring or influence.
• Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar (1983): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a dying declaration need not be reduced to writing or recorded in any prescribed manner. The court must assess its evidentiary value based on the totality of the circumstances.
• State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003): The Court emphasized that a dying declaration can be admitted as evidence even if the declarant had not been certified as being in a fit state of mind to make the statement.
• Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978): The Court held that minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in a dying declaration do not necessarily render it unreliable if the core substance remains consistent.

These cases illustrate the importance of dying declarations as evidence and the standards applied by the courts in assessing their reliability and admissibility. It is crucial for the court to carefully evaluate the circumstances surrounding the declaration and ensure that it meets the requirements laid down in the Indian Evidence Act for its admissibility.

The Indian Evidence Act does not specifically provide a set list of ingredients for a dying declaration. However, based on legal principles and judicial precedents, certain essential elements are commonly considered for a dying declaration to be admissible and reliable. Here are the key ingredients typically associated with a dying declaration:

• Statement made by a person: The declaration must be made by a person who is in a dying condition and has a settled expectation of death. It should be made by the declarant voluntarily and without any external pressure or influence.

• Regarding the cause of death or circumstances leading to death: The declaration should pertain to the cause or circumstances of the declarant’s impending death. It can include information about the persons responsible or events leading to the fatal incident.

• Conscious state of mind: The declarant should possess a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of making the statement. They should understand the nature and consequences of their statement and have the capacity to narrate the relevant facts.

• Absence of hope of recovery: The declarant should have a clear realization that there is no hope of survival and that death is imminent. The statement should reflect the declarant’s awareness of their impending demise.

• Absence of motive to falsely implicate: The dying declaration should be free from any motive to falsely implicate someone. It should be made without any intention to deceive or mislead and should be based on the declarant’s genuine knowledge of the facts.

• Consistency and reliability: The declaration should be consistent in its material particulars and should be supported by other evidence, if available. It should be reliable and trustworthy, inspiring confidence in its truthfulness.

While these ingredients provide a general framework for a dying declaration, it is important to note that each case is unique, and the admissibility and weight given to a dying declaration may depend on the specific circumstances and facts of the case. The courts carefully evaluate the declaration’s authenticity, credibility, and overall reliability in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness.

           

.