Dying Declaration Under Section 32 of Ipc

15499 Words62 Pages
DYING DECLARATION “Truth sits on the lips of a person who is about to die” Introduction A Dying Declaration means the statement of a person who has died explaining the circumstances of his death. It can be said to be a statement made by a mortally injured person, indicating who has injured them and/or the circumstances surrounding their injury. The injured is aware that he/she is about to die and while the declaration is hearsay, it is admissible since it is believed that the dying person does not have any reason to lie. Such a statement can be proved when it 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. The statement will be relevant in every case or…show more content…
So, they held his statement to be inadmissible under section 32. Circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death The other important condition for the admissibility of a statement as a dying declaration is that it must relate to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. This was vividly explained by the Privy Council in the Case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. The Emperor. The facts of the case were that the accused had borrowed Rs. 3000 from the deceased during 1936. On 20th March, 1937, the deceased received a letter from the accused inviting him to come that day or next to Behrampur. The deceased left his house on 21st March, 1037 in time to catch the train for Behrampur. But he did not come back. On 23rd March, 1937, at about noon, his dead body was found in a steel trunk in a third class compartment at Puri. The dead body was identified by the widow. The accused was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death. During the trial, the widow of the deceased stated before the Court that on that day her husband showed her a letter and said that he was going to Behrampur as the appellant’s wife had written to him and told him to go and receive payment for his dues. This statement was objected by the appellant because it was not a statement after the
Open Document