Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of certain statements as evidence in cases where the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence. This section outlines the circumstances under which such statements can be considered relevant and admissible in court.
The main provisions of Section 32 are as follows
Statements by a Person Who is Dead
When the statement in question is made by a person who is dead, and the statement relates to the cause of their death, or any circumstances of the transaction that resulted in their death, it is considered relevant and admissible as evidence. In other words, dying declarations or statements made by a person on their deathbed can be admitted in court.
Statements by a Person Who Cannot Be Found
If the person who made the statement cannot be found after reasonable efforts to locate them, their statement becomes relevant and admissible. This is typically relevant in cases where a witness or a person involved in the case is missing.
Statements by a Person Who is Incapable of Giving Evidence
If the person who made the statement is incapable of giving evidence due to their physical or mental condition, such as being in a state of insanity, the statement may be considered relevant and admissible.
Section 32 is significant in cases where the person who made the statement is not available to testify in court due to death, disappearance, or incapacity. The purpose of this section is to allow certain statements to be used as evidence to ensure that important facts related to the case are not lost when a witness or party to the case is unable to testify. However, the court evaluates the admissibility of such statements carefully to ensure their credibility and relevance to the case.
Meaning of Dying Declaration
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is on their deathbed or in a condition where they believe death is imminent, and the statement pertains to the cause of their own death or the circumstances surrounding the events that led to their death. Dying declarations are given significant weight in legal proceedings because they are presumed to be made in a state of extreme solemnity and are often considered highly reliable.
The key characteristics of a dying declaration are as follows:
- Made in Anticipation of Death: The statement is made by a person who believes that they are about to die, and their statement is related to the cause of their death or the events leading to their death.
- Voluntary and Conscientious: The statement must be made voluntarily and without any undue influence, pressure, or coercion. The person making the statement should be in a condition to understand the gravity of their situation and the consequences of their statement.
- Statement of Fact: Dying declarations usually consist of statements of fact, not opinions or conjectures. They often describe the circumstances or individuals responsible for the injury or death.
- Admissible in Court: Dying declarations are admissible as evidence in court, even though the person who made the statement cannot testify in person. This is an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence, where statements made by someone who is not testifying in court are typically not admissible.
The rationale behind the admission of dying declarations is that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to make a false statement, and they have no motive to lie. Courts often treat such statements as trustworthy and credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly in cases of murder or manslaughter, as they provide a means for the deceased person to testify from beyond the grave.
Comparison of Indian law and English law regarding Dying Declaration
| Aspect | Indian Law | English Law |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Framework | Governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with specific provisions under Section 32. | Based on common law principles, judicial decisions, and precedents. There is no specific statutory provision. |
| Definition | The statement must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to death. It must be made by a person who believed they were about to die. | While recognized, there is no specific statutory definition. Criteria for admissibility are determined by case law. |
| Evidentiary Standard | Dying declarations are considered substantive evidence, and they can be the basis for a conviction if found reliable. | Treated as hearsay evidence, subject to common law rules governing the admissibility of hearsay. |
| Presumption of Truthfulness | A presumption exists in Indian law that dying declarations are truthful, given the belief that a person facing imminent death has no reason to lie. | While recognized as often reliable, there is no specific presumption of truthfulness in English law. Admissibility and reliability are determined on a case-by-case basis. |
Case Laws on Dying Declaration
Ramlakhan vs. State of Rajasthan (1975)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India laid down the principles regarding the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations. It emphasized that a dying declaration should be made voluntarily and should not be a result of tutoring or prompting. It should be free from ambiguity and should be reliable enough to form the basis for a conviction.
K.R. Reddy vs. State of Karnataka (2001)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that a dying declaration need not be in question-and-answer form. A series of statements made by the deceased, even if not in response to specific questions, can collectively constitute a dying declaration if they relate to the cause of death.
Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay (1958)
This case emphasized that a dying declaration should be subjected to close scrutiny and should be relied upon only when it is made by a person who is in a fit mental condition to make a statement.
Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998)
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration should be recorded by a magistrate when possible. However, non-recording by a magistrate does not render the dying declaration inadmissible as long as it meets the criteria of voluntariness and reliability.
Nallathambi vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that even if there is only one dying declaration and no corroboration, a conviction can be based on it if it is found to be trustworthy and there is no reason to doubt its veracity.
Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration
- Firsthand Information: Dying declarations often provide a firsthand account of the circumstances that led to the person’s injury or death. Since the declarant is typically a victim or a witness to a crime, their statement can be highly relevant and valuable in establishing the facts of the case.
- Trustworthiness: There is a presumption of truthfulness attached to dying declarations. The belief is that a person facing imminent death has no motive to lie or make false accusations. This presumption adds to the credibility of the statement.
- Incapable of Cross-Examination: In many cases, the person making the dying declaration is unavailable for cross-examination due to their death or incapacity. As a result, their statement may be admitted as evidence because they cannot be questioned in court, which adds to its reliability.
- Circumstantial Corroboration: While a dying declaration alone can be a strong piece of evidence, it is often supplemented by other evidence and circumstances. Corroboration, if available, can strengthen the evidentiary value of the dying declaration.
However, it’s important to note that the evidentiary value of a dying declaration is not absolute and is subject to certain conditions:
- Voluntariness: The statement must be made voluntarily without any undue influence, pressure, or coercion. Courts will assess whether the declarant was under any duress or external influence while making the statement.
- Mental State: The declarant must be in a fit mental condition to make the statement. If the person is in a state of confusion or delirium, their statement may not be considered reliable.
- Relevance: The statement must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to death. Irrelevant or extraneous statements may not be admissible.
- Corroboration: While corroborating evidence is not always required, the presence of other evidence or circumstances that support the dying declaration can enhance its evidentiary value.
- Recorded by Magistrate: While not mandatory, the recording of a dying declaration by a magistrate can add to its credibility.
K.R. Reddy vs. State of Karnataka (2001)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the evidentiary value of a dying declaration and clarified some important principles:
- The Court ruled that a dying declaration should be subjected to a close scrutiny to ensure its reliability and voluntariness.
- It clarified that a dying declaration does not necessarily have to be in a question-and-answer format. A series of statements made by the deceased, even if not in response to specific questions, can collectively constitute a dying declaration if they relate to the cause of death.
- The Court highlighted that the mental condition of the declarant is crucial. The declarant should be in a fit mental condition to make a statement for it to be considered reliable.
