Supreme Court: Admissibility Of Dying Declaration Not Dependent On Person’s Having Consciousness Of Approach Of Death

The Supreme Court held that the law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person’s having a consciousness of the approach of death.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which set aside the acquittal Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “The law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person's having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.”

The Bench said that it would be incorrect to say that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration; if it is believed, it requires no corroboration.

AORs Vikrant Singh and Sangeeta Kumar appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Accused while AOR Abhishek Gautam appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

The Appellants i.e., the accused persons were put to trial for the offences under Sections 451, 324, 504, 506, and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). As per the prosecution case, in the year 2000, the deceased had a quarrel with his own brother (co-accused) in respect of setting a heap of cow dung on fire. Allegedly, the co-accused getting annoyed, called for his two friends i.e., the Appellants, who laid an assault on the deceased. It was alleged that the first accused had in his hand a weapon called ‘Darat’ and hit a blow on the forehead of the deceased. Darat is in the form of a sickle and is used as an agricultural tool. The other two accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with fist and kick blows. The wife of the deceased came to his rescue and the deceased after taking preliminary medical treatment, himself went to the Police Station and lodged an FIR.

Later, the health of the deceased deteriorated and he got himself admitted in a hospital. After about nine days from the date of incident, he passed away. As the deceased passed away, the police added Section 304 IPC. The post-mortem report revealed that there was a fissured fracture in the skull of the deceased and while undergoing treatment, he suffered gastroenteritis and that further deteriorated his health. Ultimately, as per the opinion of the medical expert, he died due to asphyxia. The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused but then the High Court convicted them. The first accused was sentenced to undergo 6 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- whereas the second accused was sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Being aggrieved, the two accused approached the Apex Court.

Question For Consideration

The question for consideration before the Court was whether Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) requires an Expectation of Death.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Whether a dying declaration should be believed or not would depend upon the circumstances of the case. It is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the Court on the basis of the circumstances of each case. As far as the credibility is concerned, it is just like the evidence given by a witness.”

The Court elucidated that it is for the Court to decide whether to believe dying declaration or not and no rule can be laid down either that it should be believed or that it should not be believed and once it is believed, it is irrelevant and illogical to consider that it is not made on oath and that the maker has not been subjected to cross examination.

“The oath, is administered simply with the object of making the witness speak the truth so that what he deposes may be believed. The object of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the witness”, it further reiterated.

The Court added that once the dying declaration is held to be believable, the questions that no oath was administered and that the dying declaration was not tested by cross-examination, cannot arise.

“The questions would have to be considered before holding the dying declaration to be believable. When the law has made it a “relevant fact” notwithstanding the absence of oath and cross-examination, it means that it will not be held to be unbelievable merely on account of the absence of these matters. If it is held to be unbelievable, it must be done on the basis of other circumstances”, it observed.

The Court also said that the approach of death is deemed to produce a state of mind in which the statements of the dying person are to be taken as free from all ordinary motives to misstate.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, remarked, “In the overall view of the matter, we have reached the conclusion that we should not interfere with the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court. However, there are few mitigating circumstances on the basis of which we are persuaded to reduce the sentence imposed by the High Court.”

The Court reduced the sentence of the first accused from 6 years RI to 1 year RI and maintained the amount of Rs. 5,000/- fine. It also reduced the sentence of the second accused to the period already undergone by him but directed him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, if not yet paid.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal.

Cause Title- Sita Ram & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 359)

Appearance:

Appellants: AORs Vikrant Singh, Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates Rajesh Kandari, Neema, Vithika Garg, Vidushi Garg, and Hemant Kumar Tripathi.

Respondent: AOR Abhishek Gautam, Advocates Karan Kapur, and Shubham Soni.

Click here to read/download the Judgment