Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The other important condition for the admissibility of a statement as a dying declaration is that it
must relate to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. This was vividly
explained by the Privy Council in the Case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. The Emperor. The
facts of the case were that the accused had borrowed Rs. 3000 from the deceased during 1936.
On 20th March, 1937, the deceased received a letter from the accused inviting him to come that
day or next to Behrampur. The deceased left his house on 21st March, 1037 in time to catch the
train for Behrampur. But he did not come back. On 23rd March, 1937, at about noon, his dead
body was found in a steel trunk in a third class compartment at Puri. The dead body was
identified by the widow. The accused was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death.
During the trial, the widow of the deceased stated before the Court that on that day her husband
showed her a letter and said that he was going to Behrampur as the appellants wife had written
to him and told him to go and receive payment for his dues. This statement was objected by the
appellant because it was not a statement after the transaction or the injury. Their Lordships of the
Privy Coucil held them to be admissible because it related to the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in his death and so, it was rightly admitted under section 32(1). In this
connection, the observations made by the Lord Atkin are worth noting:
The phrase circumstance of transaction, no doubt, conveys some limitations. It is not as broad
as the analogous use n circumstantial evidence which includes the evidence of all facts. It is on
the other hand narrower. Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual
occurrence though as for instance in a case of prolonged poisoning, they may be related to dates
at a considerable distance from the date of actual dose.
Further His Lordship saidThe circumstances must be the circumstances of the transaction in general indicating fear or
suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion
of the death will not be admissible.
But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact
killed or as to the reasons for so proceeding or that he was going to meet a particular person or
that he had been invited by such person to meet him, would each of them, be the circumstances
of the transaction. The statement under this clause may be made before the cause of death has
arisen or before the deceased has reason to anticipate being killed.
A dying declaration may be in the following forms:
1. Written form;
2. Verbal form;
3. Gestures and Signs form. In the case ''Queen vs Abdulla'', it was held that if the injured person
is unable to speak, he can make dying declaration by signs and gestures in response to the
question.
4. If a person is not capable of speaking or writing he can make a gesture in the form of yes or no
by nodding and even such type of dying declaration is valid.
5. It is preferred that it should be written in the vernacular which the patient understands and
speaks.
6. A dying declaration may be in the form of narrations. In case of a dying declaration is recorded
in the form of narrations, nothing is being prompted and everything is coming as such from the
mind of the person making it.
Khushal Rao Case
In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, the deceased made four separate and identical declarations
before the doctor, police inspector, Magistrate, and to other person, stating that he has been
assaulted by Kaushal and one other person. The question was whether the accused could be
convicted only on the basis of this declaration or the declaration needed corroboration. There are
divergent views of different High Courts in this regard. According to Bombay High Court, dying
declaration is a weaker type of evidence and require corroboration. According to Calcutta High
Court, it is not permissible to accept a declaration in one part and reject the other part. According
to Madras High Court, a declaration can be relied without corroboration, if the court is convinced
of its truth, i.e., there is no suspicion of its credibility.
The Supreme Court, agreeing with Madras High Court, laid down the following principles:
(1)There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction
unless corroborated.
(2)Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstance in which the
dying declaration was made.
(3)A dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence than any other piece of evidence. It
stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence.
(4)A dying declaration cannot be equated with a confession or evidence of approver, as it may
not come from a tainted source. If it is made by the person whose antecedents are as doubtful as
in the other cases that may be a ground for looking upon it with suspicion.
(5)Necessity of corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a
piece of evidence, but from the fact the Court in a particular case came to the conclusion that a
particular declaration is not free from infirmities.
(6)To test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view the circumstances
like the opportunity of the dying mans observation, e.g., whether there was sufficient light if the
crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the declarant was not impaired at the time
of the statement; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities
for making a dying declaration; and that the statement was at the earliest opportunity and was not
the result of tutoring by the interested parties.
(7)A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in a proper manner in the form of
questions and answers, and in the words of the maker as far as practicable stands on much higher
footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all
the infirmities of human memory and character.
(8)If the Court, after taking everything into consideration, is convinced that the statement is true,
it is its duty to convict, notwithstanding that there is no corroboration in the true sense. The Court
must, of course, be fully convinced of the truth of the statement, and naturally, it could not be
fully convinced if there was anything in the surrounding circumstances to raise suspicion as to its
credibility. Thus, a true and voluntary declaration needs no corroboration.
The statement of the deceased in this case satisfied all these conditions (the declaration was true
in all respects e.g., consistent in so far as naming of the two accused) and therefore the appellants
should be convicted.