"None will meet his maker with a lie in his mouth ............"
Sec 32 of Indian Evidence Act stands for the cases in which statement of fact by person who is dead or can't be found etc.; is relevant. Statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is dead is called a "dying declaration". The principle on which the dying declaration is admitted in evidence is that “a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth" [nemo moriturns pracsumuntur mentiri]. To accept a dying declaration, the basic requirement is that the person who made should be no more. Where a person makes a dying declaration survives, his statement cannot be admitted under section Sec.32 of the Evidence Act, but it can be relied as one under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to contradict his statement. [Sant Gopal @ Bhagat v. State of UP 1995 Cr.L.J. 312]. Dying declaration is the groaning utterances, of a dying man in the grip of dreadful agony, which can't be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars, which the witnesses may give, in another situations. If there is credibility it is not to be discredited for the short falls here or there or even in many places; because the dying declaration is very natural and straight forward and contains a ring of truth. As such there is no case of tutoring or no reasoning so as to implicate the accused falsely; the dying declaration can be admitted as evidence [State of Rajasthan v. Ganesh Das, 1995 Cr.L.J. 25.Raj]. When a declaration is made by the deceased as to the cause of his death, his statement is relevant, in a case where the cause of his death is at issue. The fact that the deceased lingered for some days after the receipt of fatal injuries does not deprive the statement of its character as a dying declaration since the interval between the statement and death is immaterial. In other words, the statement of a person who has died is relevant only when the statement is made by that person as to cause of his death or as to any circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death. The advisability of the statement is not at all limited to a particular proceeding. Where ever the cause of death of a person is in question or is at issue, irrespective of the proceedings; i.e.; civil or criminal, the statement is relevant. That is to say, the only material point is that the cause of death of the person, whose statement is sought to be proved, must come into question irrespective of the nature of the proceeding in which it comes into question. The form, age etc. of the declaring person also is immaterial. Dying declaration by a minor is also admissible. The declaration may be oral, or in writing or even partly oral and partly in writing. It may even consist of signs or gestures made by the deceased. But there must however be a distinct and definite assertion as the part of the maker however it may be affected. Preferably a dying declaration should be in the question and answer form, there is no such hard and fast rule that a dying declaration reduced into the form of a statement can't be acted upon. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. "The dying declaration made to any per son if unblemished and acceptable, is a strong piece of evidence on which conviction could be supported even though it may be considered to have a better probative value when it is made to a Magistrate" [George v. State of Kerala 1990 (1) KLT 35 (SN)]. It is to be taken into consideration that the person who records a dying declaration should be satisfied that the dying man was making a conscious and voluntary statement with normal understanding. When the dying declaration is verbal, it can be proved by examining the person in whose presence, it was made, and if it is recorded, the person recording the statement is to be examined to prove the statement as any other document. But if the Magistrate who is authorized to do so records the declaration, the mere production of the recorded dying declaration would prove itself under Sec. 80 of the Evidence Act, and there the mere identity of the deponent alone need be proved. [Sooraj Bali v. Emperor AIR 1934 All. 340] As stated earlier it is an implicit condition of the admissibility of a dying declaration that it must be made by a person who is physically and mentally in a fit condition to make a statement. "When the deceased was not in a fit state of mind and body to make a coherent and intelligible statement, then such dying declaration could not be relied upon and any conviction based on it is not sustainable. [Kutty v. State of Kerala 1984 Cr.L.J. 191 Kerala]. There is no rule of law or precedent that a dying declaration requires corroboration. [Ghuraiya @Rohini Balsawar v. State of MP 1990 Cr.L.J. 1129 MP]. But if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear or convincing then the court may look for corroboration. [State of UP v. Ram Sagar Yadev AIR 1985 Sc.416] Woodroffe and Amir Ali, in the 'Law of Evidence' 14th edition, vol.2, page.970, describes the principal reasons for admitting the dying declaration in evidence, as "When a man is dying, the position in which he is placed is held by law to be a sufficient ground for his veracity, and therefore, the tests of oath and cross examination are dispensed with, under such circumstances. Besides if dying declarations are excluded or discarded, there would be miscarriage of justice in many cases since the victims being generally the only eye witness in serious cases, the exclusion of his statement would leave us without scope of evidence". Suggested Readings :
- AIR 1980 SC 559
- AIR 1968 SC 1390
- 1992 (1) KLJ 491
- 1987 (1) KLT 928
- AIR 1958 SC 22
- 1999 SCC (Crl.) 846
- AIR 1993 SC 1180
- AIR 1980 SC 559
- AIR 1990 SC 2124
- 2000 (2) KLT SN 21 P. 18
- 2000 (1) KLJ 23
- 1999(3) KLT 948
- 2000 (2) KLT SN 77 p. 67
- 2000 (2) KLT SN 50 P. 42
- 17.AIR 2000 SC 2324
- 2000 (1) SCC 310
- AIR 1999 SC 3062
- AIR 2000 SC 2602
- AIR 2000 SC2480
- 1993 (2) KLT 384
- 1993 (2) KLT 358
