Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations

 Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations

The Supreme Court of India has established comprehensive principles for evaluating multiple dying declarations in criminal cases, recognizing that these statements, while powerful evidence, require careful judicial scrutiny to ensure justice.

Legal Foundation and Admissibility

Multiple dying declarations are governed by Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides an exception to the hearsay rule based on the principle of "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" (a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth). This legal maxim forms the foundation for accepting dying declarations as substantive evidence in criminal proceedings.

Core Principles Established by Supreme Court

1. Voluntary and Reliable Statements

The Supreme Court has consistently held that all dying declarations must be voluntary and reliable, with the person making the statement in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration. This fundamental requirement ensures that the statements are not the product of coercion, tutoring, or mental incapacity.

2. Individual Assessment of Each Declaration

In Amol Singh v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court established that "when there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variations in the other". This principle ensures that courts examine each statement individually before making comparative evaluations.

3. Consistency Requirements

The landmark case of Kamla v. State of Punjab established that "the statement should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations". The Court emphasized that if there are more than one dying declaration, they should be consistent.

4. Examination of Inconsistencies

When inconsistencies exist between multiple declarations, the Supreme Court has provided clear guidance:

• Nature of Inconsistencies: Courts must examine the nature of the inconsistencies namely whether they are material or not

• Surrounding Circumstances: Courts should examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances

• Reliability Over Plurality: It is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case

5. Preference for Higher Authority Recordings

The Supreme Court has established that "in case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness".

Judicial Precedents and Guidelines

State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar

This case established that "the court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations". The Court emphasized the need for additional reliable evidence when contradictory versions exist.

Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.

This precedent clarified that if a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies.

Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay

This foundational case established that "it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated". The Court emphasized that each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made.

Practical Application Guidelines

Medical Certification Requirements

The Supreme Court has clarified that medical certification is not a sine qua non for accepting the dying declaration. However, in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, the Court established that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.

Recording Procedures

For multiple dying declarations, courts must ensure:

• Proper identification of the recording officer

• Confirmation of the declarant's mental capability

• Recording of questions and answers verbatim

• Absence of interested persons during recording

Corroboration Standards

The Supreme Court has established in Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) that:

• Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court

• The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement

• Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration

Contemporary Jurisprudence

Recent Supreme Court decisions have reinforced these principles. In Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Court reiterated that "the primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind".

Evidentiary Weight and Judicial Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has emphasized that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence. It has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing weighing of evidence. This ensures that multiple dying declarations are not automatically accepted but are subject to rigorous judicial examination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's approach to multiple dying declarations balances the need for justice with the protection of accused persons' rights. The established principles require courts to conduct thorough individual assessments while considering the collective reliability of multiple statements. These guidelines ensure that dying declarations, despite their inherent limitations as unsworn testimony, can serve as credible evidence when they meet the stringent standards of voluntariness, reliability, and consistency established by judicial precedent.

Print Page