Judgments on Dying declaration

1. Medical opinion cannot wipe out the direct testimony of the eyewitness stating that the deceased was in fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration . [ N Ram vs  State.]

2. If the person making it is imbecile or is of tender age and was incompetent to testify due to this reason, that dying declaration would not be valid [R v. Pike. C & P.1829; 3: 598]

3. As a measure of safety original dying declaration should be sent to the court like FIR and its Photostat should be kept in the case file [State of Karnataka v. Shivalingappa, 2001 (4) RCR(Criminal) 237 (Karnataka) (DB)].

4.  Even the ''History'' given by the injured recorded by the doctor in the case file has been considered as dying declaration by the honorable Court if it is mentioned that the patient told in the history that incident occurred in such and such manner which was responsible for the death of the victim [State of Karnataka v. Shariff ].

5. First information report got recorded by the police has been taken as dying declaration  by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when the person did not survive to get his dying declaration  recorded [AIR 1976 2199 (SC)].

6. But,  in the case  State of Punjab v. Kikar Singh, 2002 (30 RCR (Criminal) 568 (P & H) (DB), it was held that ''when patient remained admitted in hospital for sufficient days i.e. for 8 days FIR cannot be treated as dying declaration''.

7.  In the case ''State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376 (Karnataka) (DB)'', it was held  that ''A suicide note written found in the clothes of the deceased it is in the nature of dying declaration  and is admissible in evidence under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act''.

8. In the case, (State of Gujarat v. Rabri Pancha Punja. Cri LJ. 1981;NOC: 171 (Guj) , it was held that '' It retains its full value if it can justify that victim could identify the assailant, version narrated by victim is intrinsically sound and accords with probabilities and any material evidence is not proved wrong by any other reliable evidence''.

9. Dying declaration becomes unreliable if it is not as per prosecution version. In the case of '' State of UP v. Madan Mohan, AIR 1989 SC 1519'' ,  the Hon'ble  Supreme Court of India held:

1. It is for the court to see that dying declaration inspires full confidence as the maker of the dying declaration  is not available for cross-examination

2. Court should satisfy that there was no possibility of tutoring or prompting.

3. Certificate of the doctor should mention that victim was in a fit state of mind. Magistrate recording his own satisfaction about the fit mental condition of the declarant was not acceptable especially if the doctor was available.

4. Dying declaration should be recorded by the executive magistrate and police officer to record the dying declaration only if condition of the deceased was so precarious that no other alternative was left.

5. Dying declaration  may be in the form of questions and answers and answers being written in the words of the person making the dying declaration. But court cannot be too technical.

10.  In Barati vs State Of U. P,1974 AIR 839, 1974 SCR (3) 570, it was held that  ''There was no reason to discard the dying declaration made by the appellant to the police sub-inspector, The trial Court was wrong in rejecting the dying declaration to the police (F.I.R.) on the ground that the deceased had stated to the doctor that he had become unconscious after the occurrence. There was nothing in the statement recorded by the doctor to indicate that the deceased remained unconscious for. a long time and as such was not in position to lodge the F.I.R. The fact that the language used in the dying declaration made to the doctor was rather chaste would not go to show that the said statement could not have been made by the deceased. As to the language used in the dying declaration there is nothing abnormal or unusual in the same person using colloquial language while talking to one person and using refined language while talking to another person. ''

11. Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor ((1939) 41 BOMLR 428;  AIR 1939 PC 47 ) on 19/1/1939 , In this case, the statement of   Pakala Narayana Swamy's wife '' he is going to Berhampur to get back his amount'' was considered as ''DYING DECLARATION''.

Some important case-law on ''Dying declaration'':

1. Autar Singh v. The Crown, AIR 1924 Lah 253
2. Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47
3. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1953CriLJ129
4. State v. Kanchan Singh, AIR 1954 All 153
5. Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar , 1959CriLJ108
6. Allijan Munshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1959) 61 BOMLR 1620
7. Rajindra Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1960 Cri LJ 851 (P&H)
8. Harbans singh v state of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439
9. Shiv Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1966 Cri AR 281,
10. Lallubhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1776
11. Onkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 CriLJ 1200 (MP)
12. Barati vs State Of U. P,1974 AIR 839
13. Munnu Raja and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2199
14. State of Gujarat v. Rabri Pancha Punja. Cri LJ. 1981;NOC: 171 (Guj)
15. Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab , 1981 CriLJ (SC) 1373
16. State of Punjab v. Savitri Devi, 1983 (2) Crimes 547
17. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , 1984CriLJ1738
18. State of UP v Ram Sagar Yadv, AIR 1985 SC 416
19. State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar and Ors, AIR 1986 SC 250
20. State of Assam v Mahim Barakataki, AIR 1987 SC 98
21. State of UP v. Madan Mohan. AIR 1989 SC 1519
22. Charipally shakaararao v Public prosecutor HC of AP AIR 1995 SC 777
23. State of Rajasthan v kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035
24. Smt. Paniben v state of Gujarat, 1992 (2) SCJ 509
25. State of HP v Hem Raj, 1992 SLC 158 P 169 (HP)
26. Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR1995 SC 135
27. Najjam Faraghi in alias Nijjam Faruqui v. State of West Bengal 1996CriLJ866
28. G.S. Walia v. State of Punjab 1998 CriLJ (SC) 2524
29. Shyam Singh Hada v State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cri LJ 1437 (Raj)
30. Sudhakar & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2602
31. Ronal Kiprono Ramkat v State of Haryana , AIR 2001 SC 2488
32. State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376 (Karnataka) (DB)
33. State of Punjab v. Kikar Singh, 2002 (30 RCR(Criminal) 568 (P & H) (DB)
34. Santosh Kumar v State of U.P., 2002 CriLJ (SC) 301
35. State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal)376 (Karnataka) (DB)
36. Laxman v. State of Mahrashtra, 2002 Cri L J 4095, (2002) 6 SCC 710
37. Shambhu v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1307
38. P V Radha Krishna v. state of Karnatka, AIR 2003 SC 2859
39. Narain Singh v. State of Harayana , AIR 2004 SC 1616
40. Viramji Mohatji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLR 1622
41. Dil Bahadur Tamag v. State of sikkim, 2005 CrLJ 786 p 798
42. Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272
43. Viramji Mohatji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLR 1622
44. Nirmal Lousi v. State of Banaswadi police, Bangalore, 2005 (1) Kar L J 213
45. State of Punjab v. Chatinder Pal Singh and Ors, AIR 2009 SC 974

Print Page