Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka recognized the inherent value of dying declaration and held that examination of a person who recorded dying declaration is essential.

What was the Background of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka Case?

• On 6^th August 1997, the deceased, namely Byregowda and his brothers had gone to the fields to work when, allegedly, all the accused armed with weapons such as clubs, iron rods and choppers came and threatened them.
• The Trial court acquitted all 29 accused persons.
• In the appeal, the High Court of Karnataka found a clear-cut case against 6 accused persons and convicted them under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years while upholding the acquittal of the rest.
• Against the judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol recognized the inherent value of a dying declaration but found several glaring issues that cast doubt on the reliability of the declaration used as evidence in this particular case. It also states that the examination of a person who recorded dying declaration is essential.
• The Court further held that the dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is rendered nugatory as the person who took down such declaration was not examined, nor did the police officer endorse the said document with details of who took down the declaration.

What is Dying Declaration?

• About:
  • Section 32 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of dying declaration.
  • This section relates to statements, written or verbal of relevant fact made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found.
  • Dying Declaration is based on the principle of “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
  • For a statement to be termed a dying declaration and thereby be admissible under Section 32 of IEA, the circumstances discussed or disclosed must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence.
  • This section is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death.
• Related Case Laws:
  • Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the SC held that the test of proximity cannot be rigidly applied across all cases. It was of the view that a broader interpretation of Section 32 of IEA is designed to account for the diverse nature and character of Indian society, aiming to prevent injustice.
  • Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992), the SC observed that it has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination.
  • Amol Singh v. State of M.P (2008), the SC held that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration.