Source: Orissa High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Orissa High Court held that a dying declaration, even if made in the form of a painful outcry naming the assailant, is admissible and sufficient for conviction if found voluntary, truthful, and reliable. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of State of Odisha v. Daktar Bhoi (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Odisha v. Daktar Bhoi (2025) Case? 

• On 28th June 2009 at about 12:30 p.m. at village Damkipali, the appellant Daktar Bhoi allegedly committed murder of his brother, Jaylal Bhoi. 
• The alleged motive behind the offence was a dispute regarding a mango tree near the appellant's house that belonged to the deceased. 
• The appellant allegedly tied the deceased's neck with a napkin to a wooden post and stabbed him with a trident (trishul) causing injuries to his head and body. 
• After the alleged murder, the appellant reportedly packed the deceased's body in a gunny bag, loaded it on his bicycle, and disposed of it in a nala (ditch) in Budhiduguri jungle. 
• The offence came to light when the deceased's son received information from his elder father and son about the incident. 
• An FIR was registered at Patnagarh Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• During investigation, police recovered the body from the nala, seized relevant evidence including a bamboo lathi and trident, and arrested the appellant and his wife. 
• Post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries on the deceased including incised wounds, stab wounds, and a ligature mark on the neck, with the cause of death being brain injury accompanied by shock. 
• The appellant and his wife were charged under Sections 302/201/34 IPC for murder, causing disappearance of evidence, and common intention. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that a dying declaration need not be addressed to a particular individual, and the deceased's utterance identifying his assailant while in acute agony constitutes a valid dying declaration. 
• The Court noted that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, particularly regarding auditory perception, can be attributed to age difference and do not demolish the credibility of their evidence. 
• The Court considered the statements made by witnesses to others immediately after the incident as admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) as res gestae. 
• The Court determined that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries and weapons used to commit the offence. 
• The Court remarked that absence of blood on the recovered trident was insufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case in light of other compelling evidence establishing the appellant's culpability. 

What is the Rule of Dying Declaration? 

• The doctrine of dying declaration is based on the Latin maxim "Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire" (a person will not meet their maker with a lie in their mouth). The principle assumes that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie, making such statements uniquely trustworthy. 
• Dying declarations are an important exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Now under New Criminal Law it is covered under Section 26(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).  
• A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, regarding the cause or circumstances of their impending death. This is an important exception to the hearsay rule in evidence law. 
• While hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, statements made by a person about the cause or circumstances of their death are considered admissible evidence regardless of whether the declarant expected to die when making the statement. 
• These declarations can take various forms - oral, written, or even through signs and gestures - and are considered valuable evidence in legal proceedings where the cause of death is in question. 

What are the Key Principles of Dying Declaration? 

• Exception to Hearsay Rule: Normally, hearsay evidence (second-hand information) is inadmissible in court, but dying declarations are a notable exception. 
• Psychological Foundation: The principle is based on the belief that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie. The law presumes that the consciousness of impending death serves as a powerful stimulus to tell the truth. 
• No Expectation of Death Requirement: As your quoted section explicitly states, the statement is admissible "whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death." This is significant as it removes what was traditionally a requirement in common law. 
• Broad Application: The declaration can be used "whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question," meaning it applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. 
• Form of Declaration: The declaration can be written or verbal, and in some jurisdictions may even be through gestures or signs. 
• Subject Matter Limitation: The declaration must relate to the cause of death or circumstances surrounding the transaction that resulted in death. 
• No Oath Requirement: Unlike regular testimony, dying declarations are admissible without being made under oath.