Examining The Viability Of Dying Declaration Under BSA - An Exception To The Hearsay Evidence Rule

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Evidence & Procedure

Published: 2026-08-23T19:46:16.244Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:10.810Z

EXAMINING THE VIABILITY OF DYING DECLARATION

UNDER BSA: AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

Bharti Mishra, LLM, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

The Indian Evidence Act of 1872, established during the British colonial period, has been a fundamental tool in guiding the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. It has set the standards for what constitutes acceptable evidence, thereby upholding the principle of justice. With the enactment of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which took effect on July 1, 2024, there have been notable revisions to the previous legislation. Despite these changes, the core objective of ensuring justice remains at the heart of the new Act. Judges are entrusted with the vital task of uncovering the truth by meticulously examining and analysing facts backed by credible evidence, thus piecing together a coherent account of events.

A particularly significant aspect of legal evidence is the concept of a dying declaration—statements made by individuals who have died and cannot be cross-examined in court. These declarations carry substantial weight in establishing criminal responsibility, although their reliability can be challenging to assess. This article aims to explore the criteria for admitting dying declarations as evidence, review the procedural rules for their acceptance, and discuss various judicial interpretations from case law. It seeks to enhance understanding of how Indian courts handle and interpret dying declarations, underscoring their vital role in the judicial process. Keywords: Dying Declaration, Admissibility, Evidentiary value.

I. Introduction

In Indian courts, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible. However, a dying declaration is an exception to this rule. This exclusion is justified because for a statement to be considered reliable by the court, it should ideally be made under oath and subjected to cross-examination. This process ensures that the statement's accuracy and credibility can be thoroughly tested, allowing any potential inaccuracies or issues of trustworthiness to be identified and addressed. However, Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 20231 delineates eight exceptional circumstances where hearsay evidence is permissible, with Section 26(a) specifically addressing the legal framework governing dying declarations.

“The significance attributed to dying declarations in legal philosophy is rooted in the maxim 'nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire', which asserts that a person approaching death is not presumed to lie, as they would not meet their maker with falsehoods. “The admissibility of a dying declaration is based on the principle that the belief in imminent death imparts a sense of seriousness and truthfulness to the statement, similar to that of a person giving testimony under oath. ”2 A dying declaration, when it instils confidence in the court and is devoid of any influence or coaching, does not necessitate corroboration. It must be evaluated considering the context and circumstances in which it was made.

”3 “For a dying declaration to be considered admissible, several criteria must be met: firstly, the declarant must have been in imminent peril of death at the time of making the statement; secondly, they must have had a clear understanding of their precarious situation; and finally, death must have ensued thereafter4. The time elapsed between the declaration and the declarant's death does not establish a strict rule for whether the testimony should be admitted or rejected. However, in the absence of stronger evidence, this time frame can provide insight into the declarant's perception of whether recovery was feasible or not. ”5 II. Interpretation of Section 26(a) BSA The law of evidence in India specifies that “evidence can be presented in any suit or proceeding only regarding the existence or non-existence of facts that are directly in issue, and not for any other matters. ”6.

Hence evidence can only be given of fact which are those logically connected to the matter in issue. The Indian legal system, largely influenced by the English model,

1 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s. 26 (hereinafter the Act).

2 Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1814.

3 Umakant v. State of Chhattisgarh, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2943.

4 Smt. Laxmi v. Om Prakash, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2383.

5 JOHN PITT TAYLOR, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 458-59 (12th ed.).

6 Ibid. s. 3.

categorizes relevance into legal and logical connections. Hence, for a fact to be admissible under the Act, it must not only be logically connected but must also be declared relevant under the provisions of the Act7. The Act identifies various facts which are mentioned from Section 3-50 of the Act as relevant for which evidence can be presented in court. Statements, whether oral or written, are declared relevant under different sections of the Act8. Section 26(a) addresses dying declarations by stating that “statements made by a person regarding the cause of their death or any circumstances leading to their death are relevant in proceedings where the cause of death is in question. This applies regardless of whether the person making the statement was or was not expecting death at the time, and regardless of the nature of the proceeding”9.

“Such statements remain relevant regardless of whether the declarant was expecting death at the time of making them and regardless of the nature of the legal proceeding”. 10 Section 26 of the Act outlines that statements are admissible as evidence under specific conditions. These conditions include statements made by individuals who are deceased, cannot be found, are unable to give evidence due to incapacity, or cannot be brought to court in a reasonable timeframe. Section 26(a) of the Act includes statements commonly referred to as 'dying declarations', which are statements made by a person who is dying about the injuries that led to their condition or the circumstances in which those injuries were inflicted.

11 In cases such as Moti Singh12, the Supreme Court of India has stressed that for a statement to be considered a dying declaration under this section, it must directly pertain to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it. Another aspect that this section covers those statements which are about any circumstance that resulted in the death of the person, by which the scope of admissibility is extended. The scope of this sub- section is considerably broadened when the terms 'circumstances' and 'transaction resulting in death'13 are linked with each other. It then encompasses any fact connected, directly or indirectly, to the transaction leading to death. In the English legal system, there is a requirement that the person making the dying declaration must anticipate the death,

7 Ibid. ss.3-50 (Chapter-2- Relevancy of Facts).

8 Ibid. ss.17-31 (Admissions and Confessions, wherein sections 24 and 30 deal with confession and rest all deal with admission).

9 Ibid s.26.

10 Smt. Laxmi v. Om Prakash, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2383; Also see, Najjam Faruqui alias Najjam Faruqui v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 682.

11 Abdul Gani v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 233.

12 Moti Singh v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 900.

13 Ibid s.26.

but there is no such requirement in the Indian legal system. However, if we look at what holds more weightage, then it can be said that is death is anticipated or if death takes place after the making of the declaration, then it holds more weight. 14 It can be observed that the wording in Section 26(a) of 'circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death' is broader in scope than simply 'circumstances causing his death'. Hence there is not a need of necessarily having a direct link between the circumstances which are causing the death and the death itself. “What matters is whether the statements made by the deceased reference any circumstances connected to any transactions leading to their death”.

15 Unlike English law, which limits the use of dying declarations to criminal homicide cases, Indian law permits their admissibility in both civil and criminal cases when the cause of death is relevant16. According to Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, a dying declaration is admissible in any type of proceeding—whether civil or criminal—if it concerns the cause of the deceased's death. This means that the nature of the proceeding, whether it involves charges of murder, culpable homicide, suicide, or even civil matters, does not affect the admissibility of the dying declaration. Furthermore, “Indian law permits the use of such statements in cases of suicide, whereas English law prohibits their use in such circumstances”. 17 III.

Dying Declaration and Hearsay Evidence The fundamental principle of evidence law states that facts must typically be proven through direct evidence, meaning only evidence directly pertaining to the facts at issue is admissible. In the case of dying declarations, the usual requirement for direct oral evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination are waived because the declarant is deceased, incapacitated, or otherwise unavailable, leaving their statement as the best available evidence of the circumstances. Despite being made long before any investigation or the event of death or incapacity, these statements are deemed highly credible due to their nature and relevance to establishing crucial facts, thus forming an exception to the hearsay rule. M.

Sarkar has argued convincingly about the necessity and reliability of such exceptions, highlighting circumstances where truthful statements are likely, and falsification is improbable due to fear of detection or punishment18.

14 Bharat v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) Cr LJ 1274; State v. Kanchan, A.I.R. 1954 All. 153.

15 Patel Hiralal Joita Ram v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2944.

16 Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22.

17 Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3062.

18 M.C. Sarkar and P.C. Sarkar, Law of Evidence Vol.- I 724 (Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2008).

Section 26 (a) offers an exception to the usual principle that evidence is considered unreliable if the accused cannot cross-examine the person providing it. Instead, it places trust in the seriousness and reverence of an oath, based on the belief that a person who is dying is unlikely to lie in their statements unless there is substantial evidence suggesting otherwise19. Emson Ramond further categorizes various admissible facts under evidence law, including statements forming part of the res gestae20, those made by deceased persons under specific conditions, and other categories that underscore the importance of such evidence in proving facts. While hearsay evidence is generally excluded because it lacks the reliability and oath-based assurance of direct testimony, exceptions exist where such evidence is essential and reliable under specific circumstances defined by law21. IV.

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration According to Mathew Arnold, “Truth sits on the lips of a dying man. ” When a person has passed away, they cannot testify in court, creating a unique challenge in legal proceedings. The acceptance of dying declarations is primarily justified by two key principles: the doctrine of necessity and the solemnity of the occasion in which they are made. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan22 and further supported by R. C. Lahoti J. in Laxmi v. Omprakash23, has eloquently summarized the law concerning dying declarations. It emphasizes that a dying declaration made by an individual at the brink of death holds a special sanctity, as it is believed that a person in such a solemn moment is unlikely to speak falsely.

“The fear of impending death helps ensure that the statement made by the deceased about how they died or the events leading up to it is truthful”. 24. A dying declaration is therefore given an almost sacred status as evidence, since it comes directly from the deceased victim themselves. When courts thoroughly examine both the dying person's statement and the supporting testimony of witnesses, the declaration can become a vital and trustworthy piece of evidence. If the court determines that the dying declaration is authentic, truthful, and free from external influences like coaching or personal bias, it can be

19 Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622.

20 The concept of ‘res gestae’ is mentioned under section 4 of the Act by the title “Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction”.

21 Supra note 24.

22 A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1814.

23 A.I.R. 2001 S.C.

24 Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2324.

used as the basis for a conviction, even if no further corroboration is provided. 25 Even though a dying declaration carries significant weight, courts must ensure it meets specific criteria before accepting it as evidence. The statement needs to be reliable and trustworthy. “The court has to verify that the person was mentally sound when making the declaration and that there was no coercion or fabrication involved”26. While the law doesn’t require additional evidence to back up a dying declaration, judges carefully evaluate its credibility based on the particulars of the case. Supreme Court cases, like Ram Nath Mahadeo Prasad v. State of M. P. 27 and Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay28, have made it clear that a dying declaration can be used as valid evidence even if it’s not supported by other proof.

It’s possible for a conviction to be based entirely on a dying declaration, provided it’s carefully assessed29. Each situation is considered individually to ensure the statement was given freely and honestly. If there’s any doubt about the declaration’s reliability or authenticity, it cannot be used for conviction. In essence, while a dying declaration is a crucial piece of evidence because of the serious circumstances in which it’s given, its acceptance and reliability are determined by strict court standards to ensure fairness and truth. Even if it’s the only evidence, a dying declaration must be thoroughly examined and accurately recorded. Courts check various factors to confirm its reliability, including when the declaration was made, its clarity, consistency with other evidence, and whether it was made without external influence.

They also look at the specifics of the statement, the correct identification of the perpetrator, and the declarant’s condition at the time. Meeting these standards helps establish the declaration’s credibility and its importance in legal proceedings. Further elaboration on these aspects is necessary in subsequent discussion.

1) Declaration to be given at first opportunity

To ensure a dying declaration's reliability, courts follow several key criteria. One important factor is that the statement should be recorded as soon as possible to reduce the risk of unforeseen events or external influence affecting the dying person. This immediate recording is crucial for maintaining the clarity and reliability of the declaration, especially regarding

25 Muthu Kutty v. State, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 1473.

26 Sambhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1307.

27 A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 420.

28 A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22.

29 Lakhan v. State of MP (2010) 8 SCC 514.

details about the crime, the perpetrator, and specific events and locations30. It’s important to define what constitutes the "first opportunity" for recording the statement, meaning it should be done without unnecessary delay to prevent any tampering or outside interference. In the case of G. S. Walia v. State of Punjab31, the court accepted a two-day delay in recording the victim’s statement due to their medical condition, which had prevented an earlier declaration. Whether a delay is acceptable depends on the circumstances; for instance, while a delay of two hours might be seen as unreasonable, a two-day delay could be justified if the victim's condition made it impossible to provide a statement sooner. Therefore, adhering to the principle of capturing the statement at the earliest possible moment is both reasonable and necessary to preserve its integrity.

The timing for when a statement is deemed to be made "at the earliest" depends on the specific circumstances of each case, including the condition of the person making the declaration. 32. Sometimes, what might seem like a delay of hours, days, or even months could still be considered timely under the specific circumstances, whereas even a short delay in other cases might compromise the statement's reliability or value. 33

2) Declaration must be clear and precise

What is most compelling is a clear and precise statement made by a person that retains its evidentiary value even after their death. The length of the statement is immaterial; what matters is its accuracy, clarity, comprehensiveness, and specificity. Even if a declaration lacks certain details about an incident, it should not be dismissed. There is no need for brevity in the statement, as the person making it is not focused on economizing words; rather, they are expected to recount everything they experienced and perceived in a straightforward manner. This simplicity adds credibility to the statement and its contents.

3) Plurality and Consistency of Dying Declaration

When an individual makes multiple dying declarations, each statement must be evaluated independently to determine its evidentiary value, regardless of any inconsistencies between them34. It is important to address and reconcile significant differences if they arise. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the initial statement made by the injured person generally

30 Irfan v. State of UP (2023) AHC 148622.

31 A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2857.

32 Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 2021 S.C. 2399.

33 Rajendra v. State of Maharashta, (2024) INSC 422.

34 Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2013 S.C. 341.

holds more weight than subsequent ones35. “The consistency among these statements is crucial for assessing their reliability, and courts must carefully scrutinize any discrepancies to determine their relevance”36. In cases with multiple well-documented dying declarations, each must be examined to ensure they are coherent and credible. This detailed review is essential for piecing together the accurate sequence of events and identifying any inconsistencies, especially regarding key details such as the description of the perpetrators or the circumstances of the incident37. Additionally, the court must consider the declarant’s physical and mental state at the time of each statement and the context in which they were made38. This comprehensive approach is vital for evaluating the reliability of the declarations and deciding whether they can be admitted as evidence in legal proceedings.

4) Exclusion of any external influence on the declaration of a dying man

“The validity of a statement made in anticipation of death depends on it originating directly from the declarant without any external influence or manipulation. For the statement to be considered reliable, it must reflect the declarant's own thoughts and intentions without any form of coercion or external pressure”39. Before a dying declaration can be considered credible, the court must ensure it is untainted by coaching or fabrication40. In our society, there exists a potential for misinformation, which underscores the necessity to verify that a dying person's statement remains free from external manipulation regarding individuals involved and events described. Any contamination diminishes the integrity and substance of such a declaration.

For instance, if a critically injured person's purported dying declaration offers a comprehensive account of the prosecution's narrative—from motive to the exact details of the assault—there may be grounds to suspect fabrication, particularly if the declarant's condition was severe. It is unjust to dismiss a dying declaration solely because the declarant received immediate medical assistance from friends or relatives.

5) Declarant has to be physically and mentally competent while giving the

declaration

35 Ravi Kumar and others v. State of AP, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2810.

36 Jagbir Singh v State (N.C.T. of Delhi), A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 4321 p.4335.

37 Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi, A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 2161.

38 Mehiboobsab Abbasabi v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2666.

39 Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 135.

40 Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Nitin G. Shah (2016) 1 SCC 472.

For a dying declaration to be considered credible, it must satisfy the primary condition that the declarant was in a sound physical and mental state when making the statement. The individual's physical fitness needs to be thoroughly assessed to ensure there was no potential for manipulation. Typically, if a doctor certifies and testifies that the person was conscious and in a suitable condition to make the statement, the court will usually accept that the declarant was mentally capable41. The Supreme Court42 has made it clear that the validity of dying declaration is not automatically nullified if the declarant is not having a medical certificate. What matters is that the person who records the statement is satisfied that the declarant was mentally clear when making it.

Although a medical certificate is a useful precaution, the truthfulness and reliability of a dying declaration can be verified through other means. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has indicated that the declarant does not necessarily need to be in a condition to speak for their mental state to be considered fit; other indicators of mental clarity may suffice43. “When there are doubts about the mental state of the declarant, these uncertainties can impact the reliability of a dying declaration and its use as evidence for conviction”44. The law does not mandate that a dying declaration must be made before a Magistrate; instead, the significance of such statements is determined by the specific circumstances of each case45. V. Who Can Record a Dying Declaration To whom the dying declaration is to be addressed is not specified by law.

The key requirement while recording the dying declaration is that the person who is recording the declaration must ensure the declarant was in a sound mental state at the time when the statement is being made by him. Although value and reliability of a dying declaration can differ based on who records it, but generally, a declaration recorded by a Magistrate is considered to carry more weight and credibility. A) Magistrate A dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate is generally considered to have higher evidentiary value due to the Magistrate's expertise in the correct procedure and impartial

41 Shanmugam alias Kulandai Vellu v. State of TN, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 209.

42 Narendra Kumar v. NCT Delhi, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 150.

43 Gulzari Lal v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 795.

44 State of Rajasthan v. Parthu, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 10.

45 Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) INSC 613.

approach46. An expectation of neutrality and dedication towards justice is from Judicial Magistrate in order the enhancing the credibility of the statement47. For example, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shariff48, a head constable acted promptly by responding to a message about an injured individual from the hospital and immediately went to the scene after documenting the incident in the police register. Nevertheless, a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate can still be considered reliable by the courts49. It's important to understand that a dying declaration does not have to be made specifically in front of a Magistrate. In urgent cases where the declarant is on the brink of death, it is crucial to record their statement quickly, regardless of the presence of a Magistrate.

B) Police Officer The police plays a vital role in the criminal justice system, being essential for both preventing and prosecuting crimes. However, in India, there is a widespread lack of trust in this agency. Ideally, police officers should promptly respond to scenes where injured individuals need immediate attention and investigation. “Statements recorded by them in such situations are usually relied upon”50. For example, in the case of Bhagirathi v. State of Haryana51, it was ruled that a dying declaration recorded by a head constable, provided it was supported by a doctor's fitness certificate, was considered admissible in court. Similarly, the Supreme Court “has recognized that declarations recorded by sub-inspectors can be considered reliable and admissible in certain cases”52.

On the other hand, declarations may be considered inadmissible if they are recorded without involving or informing a magistrate beforehand, as illustrated in various cases. The court has stressed the importance of having a magistrate present before recording such statements, though it recognizes that this cannot always be a strict requirement. It is essential to exercise caution, and a doctor's certification significantly boosts the credibility of these declarations, as

46 Samadhan Dhudaka v. State of Maharashta, AIR 2009 SC 1059.

47 Subhash v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 349.

48 A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1074.

49 Poonam Bai v. State of Chattisgarh, A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 2130.

50 Ram Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1995 Cr LJ 3838.

51 A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 234.

52 Gulam Hushain v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2480.

demonstrated in Dalip Singh’s case53. However, in Amarjeet Singh's case54, the court pointed out that a one-size-fits-all rule does not apply, suggesting that each case should be evaluated individually. C) Doctor A statement recorded by a doctor, an impartial and independent professional, should be regarded with high credibility55. Doctors are skilled in evaluating both the physical and mental condition of patients, as well as in treating them and understanding the severity of their injuries, their implications, and the required follow-up. When a doctor notices that a patient's condition is rapidly worsening and there isn’t enough time to involve the police or a magistrate, it falls within the doctor’s responsibilities to record the dying declaration. “As a credible witness and unbiased expert, a doctor's recording of such statements deserves substantial respect and consideration”56.

D) Family Member “Family members are often the first individuals to encounter a severely injured person, providing comfort and support in such distressing moments. In these situations, statements made to close relatives should be considered with due weight and significance”57. However, courts also grapple with the inherent risks of bias and partiality in statements recorded by witnesses, particularly family members. There is a genuine concern about the possibility of fabrication, distortion, or manipulation of the dying declaration under such emotional and stressful circumstances. This concern has led courts to generally discourage relying on statements made to private individuals, especially family members. For instance, in numerous cases, the court did not place reliance on statements made to mothers. In the case of R. K.

Ramkant58, the Supreme Court expressed scepticism about the reliability of a dying declaration made to a brother. VI. Procedure and Standard of recording Dying Declaration Dying declarations are not limited to just written or spoken forms; they can also be communicated through various means between the mind and body. This includes gestures like

53 Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.R. 145.

54 State of Punjab v. Amarjeet Singh, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2013.

55 Malik Ram Bhai v. State of Orissa, 1993 Cr. L.J. 984.

56 Heeralal Yadav v. State of MP and others, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 2535.

57 State of Orissa v. Parasuram Naik, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3569.

58 Ramakant Mishra v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1982 S.C.

hand movements, nods, or eye glances. As long as the communication—whether verbal or nonverbal—is clear, definite, and demonstrates a true understanding of its significance, it is considered valid. Even a head nod can be sufficient. However, a dying declaration cannot be accepted without scrutiny59. Whether the declaration was made voluntarily, truthfully, and with a clear mind, free from external influence has to be carefully examined as a responsibility of the court60. However, there is no specific legal requirements for who can record a dying declaration, nor is there a mandated format or procedure. “But the person recording the declaration must confirm that the declarant is in a fit mental state to make the statement”61.

Although a doctor’s certificate is not always required to verify the declarant’s mental condition, it is best if the declaration is recorded in the declarant’s own words. Moreover, statement must be ipsissima verba i. e. verbatim as the person said. The recording of such statements must be done with utmost care, paying attention to the language, tone, pauses, body expressions, physical motions, and emphasis. Technical terms used in the local language, especially those describing the incident, the offender's behaviour, and the background leading to the injury, can provide crucial insights into the criminal conduct. Even if an executive magistrate records a declaration in a language different from the one spoken, the court may still consider it valid, provided it accurately reflects the original statement. Courts have clarified that dying declarations can be recorded in various formats.

These may include a simple narrative describing the incident, the people involved, the time and place, and the cause, or they may follow a question-and-answer format. In State of Karnataka v. Shariff62, the court noted that it is common for a deceased person to be asked how the incident occurred, with the statement recorded narratively. Such statements, being natural, often provide a clear account of the incident as perceived by the victim. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar63, the Supreme Court addressed whether a dying declaration must be recorded in a question-and-answer format to be admissible. The Court ruled that a dying declaration does not need to follow a question-and-answer format to be accepted as evidence. The key is that the declaration accurately reflects the declarant's own words, as

59 Kalawati v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 1932.

60 Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Saheb v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1014.

61 Laxmi v. Om Prakash A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2383.

62 A.I.R. 2020 Kar. 2626.

63 (1998) INSC 237.

the value of such statements lies in the account given by the dying person. Although a questionand-answer format can provide greater clarity, a brief declaration recorded in the declarant’s own words remains valid and reliable. The mental state, alertness, and understanding of the declarant are key factors that can be observed by the recording person. To ensure accuracy, a certificate from a medical professional confirming the declarant's mental state is often necessary. Additionally, even if the recording of a dying declaration is not done in question-and- answer form but it is clear, then it admissible.64. The absence of a question-and-answer format does not automatically disqualify the statement. However, a question-and-answer format is preferred as it aids in understanding the responses and the context of the declarant's statements. VII.

CONCLUSION

Dying declarations are critical pieces of evidence that help courts navigate the complex task of discovering the truth. Despite their limitations, these statements are highly significant. Unlike traditional evidence, dying declarations deviate from standard rules because they are not subject to cross-examination and are essentially considered hearsay. Nonetheless, courts have occasionally based convictions solely on such declarations, even though the witness cannot testify in court to elaborate on their statement. The core principle behind dying declarations is the belief in the sanctity of a person’s last words, particularly when they identify someone responsible for their injuries leading to death. While such declarations are legally admissible, courts approach them with caution to prevent misuse.

The prosecution may highlight these statements to strengthen their case, while the defence may seek to discredit them to create doubt and achieve acquittal. To mitigate these concerns, Indian courts apply a "clarity rule," which ensures that a dying declaration is clear, unambiguous, and consistent with the prosecution’s case before giving it significant weight. Statements that provide a coherent and direct account implicating the accused are more likely to be favoured if they demonstrate substantial credibility and truthfulness. Section 26(a) of the Act addresses various situations involving final words from individuals who have witnessed the offender. This provision is broader than its English counterpart and is based on different principles. Indian courts have consistently recognized the

64 State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh, (1997) 10 SCC 675.

reliability of such statements to establish facts in cases where the death and the involvement of the accused are disputed.