top of page
  • Paras Sharma


Updated: Jun 16, 2020

Written By: Upasana Borah, N.E.F Law College, Guwahati, Assam


At the ULTIMATE END of law is to confirm justice a fact to which denial could be a jugglery. Truth being the backbone of justice constitutes its strong pillar. Evidence is that the career of truth and also the proof is that the eye to which truth are often perceived the duty of jury or for that matter a judge is to search out for the truth from the facts deposed and also the evidence advanced in respect thereof. All the legal systems of the planet have their own justice delivery process to which evidence seems to be paramount. Naturally courts are removed from the facts which create liability and corresponding rights to the parties who recourse to litigation for securing justice within the sort of reparation of the loss caused under the given facts. Remedies to be sought may either be civil or criminal or apart from these two because the circumstances address but the facts no matter the character of liability need to be established before the jury or the magistrate. No system or justice delivery mechanism reasonably allow either the parties or the judge to grapple within the dark so as to determine all the following facts of a specific enquiry. This could result in confusion and further time consuming process. Thus, there are barriers imposed by law on the limit and scope of facts which are to be deposed before a court of law in order to create one‟s claim or right genuine in order that court may proceed accordingly. The Basic rules around which the complete evidentiary process rotate are - 1. Evidence is also given in a very suit or proceeding only of the relevant facts and of no others; 2. Best evidence all told the cases should be given; 3. evidence should be excluded. [1]A dying declaration is usually introduced by the prosecution, but can be used on behalf of the accused. [2]As a general rule, courts refuse to admit dying declarations in civil cases, even those for WRONGFUL DEATH, or in criminal actions for crimes other than the HOMICIDE of the decedent. SECTION 32 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872 deals with [3] the Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. –– Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: –– When it relates to cause of death. –– When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person‟s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. According to Section 32(1) it declares: 1) A statement either in oral or written. The statement must be as to:- (a) Reason for Death; (b) Under what circumstances of the transaction; (c) Resulted within the Death. The law of evidence in India mandates says that the evidence is also given of relevant facts only and of no others. Indian legal system of evidence is largely based with English model which classifies connectivity in two ways, i.e., legal and logical. while a fact is logically connected with the opposite but if the same has not been declared legally relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act Section 3 will never qualify relevancy clause. Thus, the Act envisages events, statements, entries, the judgment of Courts, expert opinion and therefore the character of the parties to the suit or proceeding as relevant that evidence is admissible before a court of law. Although as has been conceived by scholars of the topic that whatever has been declared legally relevant are logically relevant and therefore the facts declared relevant are the results of extreme foresight and innovation.


The purpose of this research is to spot the principle of “Leterm Mortem” which implies “words said before death” & in a very legal term it's called „Dying Declaration‟. The word “Dying Declaration” itself tells the meaning that highlights those questions, which have an excellent value in legal field regarding dying declaration. Dying Declaration had been a big instrument of administration of justice since past times. The common principle on which this class of evidence is admitted is that they're declarations made in edge, when the party is at the height of death and when every expectation of this world is departed, when every object to deception is silenced, and also the brain is induced by the foremost dominant considerations to verbalize the reality which is obligatory by a positive oath administered during a Court of justice.


A dying declaration can be recorded by a person or even by a police officer. But if it is recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, it will have more strength and reliability of the statement proposed by the deceased person.


Preferably, dying declaration should be provided by the injured person. If this is not possible it may be taken down in the form of question & answers. There should be no police officer near about. After taking the declaration it should be read over to the person who my sign it or give the left thumb impression. [4]The Magistrate and two witnesses should attest and forward it to the concerned Court. If the Medical officer takes down the declaration he sign it as witnesses. [5]It should be in the language of the accused. If the person is not able to speak, the signs made by him/her in response to the questions are admissible in Evidence.

[6]Ordinarily any evidence to be acceptable must be given by the person who makes the statement but the dying declaration is exception to this as the declaration made by deceased person relating to the cause of his/her death may be proved by the person to whom the statement is made.


Dying declaration recorded within the language of the declarant acquires added strengthened reliability. As far as possible, it should be recorded within the exact words and language of the declarant. In the case of Deepak Baliram Bajaj v State of Maharashtra, the death of a girl was because of 100% burn injuries, the dying declaration was recorded within the hospital by a constable. Questions were asked in Sindhi by Special Executive Magistrate and were replied in Sindhi so translated to the constable in Hindi who successively recorded them in Marathi. The declaration was to be explained in Hindi not in Sindhi language to the declarant. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the conviction based solely on such a dying declaration could not be sustained.


Since dying declaration contains the ultimate words of the person dying correlated to the causes of death of such person or on the case resulting in the death of such person, it's a fabric piece of evidence. Every attempt should be made to remain it complete from all styles of impurity. Yet, human character and standard of conduct can't govern away the danger of demolishing of dying declarations thanks to numerous elements, for instance, the condition of the individual making proclamation, status of the individual account the dying assertion, encompassing conditions of the dying presentation, the everyday and customary human mistakes in watching the items and in conveying everything that has to be conveyed to the others particularly, the outsiders, and so on. At the purpose when these realities combined with the conditions as examined above-identified with the diminishing trust remainder of the dying declarations are reflected, it okay is also securely and punctiliously presumed that the Dying Declarations are to be conceded in proof after due validation and within the wake of confirming the encircling conditions prompting the dying declarations.


© Copyrighted Material! Contact the publisher for permissions.
bottom of page