NAME: - Sneha

AHETESHAM CHOUDHARI
Ranjan Pandey

CLASS: - BALLB 4th year

DIV: - B

ROLL NO: - B-71

B-44
71

SUB: - EVIDENCE LAW

TOPIC: - Confessions under the Indian

Evidence Act
&
Dying Declaration under the Indian
Evidence Act
 Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act

Meaning of Confession:-
According to Sir James Stephen “An admission made at any time by a
person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime”.
Though it an undiscovered fact that the term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in
the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference explained under the definition of admission in
Section 17 of Indian evidence Act also applies to confession in the same manner. Section 17
expressly provides that any statement whether oral or in the form documentary which put
forward for the consideration of any conclusion to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts.
Now after understanding the discovery of both the term it is very much clear that when is put
forward for the consideration of any inference to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts in the
civil proceeding then such consideration of statements is known as confession. Thus, the
confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal offences
and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in issue
or as to relevant facts. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting
that he is guilty of a crime. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission
by the accused in the criminal proceedings is a confession.

Case Laws:-
In Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor
Lord Atkin observed that “A confession must either be admitted in the context of any offence
or in relation with any substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal proceedings.
And an admission of serious wrongdoing, even conclusively incriminating fact is not itself a
confession”.
In, Palvinder Kaur V. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court uplifted the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case and
substantiated their arguments over two reasoning- Firstly, the definition of confession only
comes to exist when the statements conferring the admission that he is either guilty of any
offence or the admission is probating all the facts which constitute the offence. Secondly, when
the statement has different qualities and contains such a mixture of confessional statements
which conclude to the acquittal of the person making the confession, then such statements
cannot be considered as a confession.
In Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra
The court while deciding the case explained the principle that “the Court before ascertaining
the facts for the purpose of deciding the facts in issues of the case, should begin ascertaining
the case facts with all other evidences possible related to the case and then only it shall turn to
the approach of confession by the accused in order to administer complete justice to the
conclusion of guilt of the accused
Meaning of Admission:-
Admission plays a vital part in judicial proceedings as if in a case
either of the parties to the suit in the judicial proceeding proves that the other party has admitted
the fact in issues or the relevant facts in the case then it becomes easy for the Court to administer
justice effectively as the court need not take much evidence and has not to involve in the
judicial proceedings because the question of the case has already been settled by either of the
parties in the course of admission. Section 17 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically
deals with the portions related to admission.
The word ‘Admission’ expressed in the Evidence Act means “When any person voluntarily
acknowledges the existence of any facts in issue or facts”. Like in the case of confession we
discovered that confession is not much described in the Evidence Act in the same manner the
Indian Evidence Act also has not done much effective work on expressing, the term
‘Admission’ in an outspread sense.
Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act, defines admission as any statement made in either form
such as oral, documentary or in electronic form which has enough probative value to suggest
or conclude any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
Admissions have no definite pattern but still, it can either be formal or informal. The formal
admission is also called as judicial admission which is made at the time of the judicial
proceeding, while the informal admission is those admissions which are made in during the
normal day to day activity like in the normal course of life. Formal admission or the judicial
admissions are completely admissible by the Court of law under Section 58 of the same act and
has much higher probative value into substantive any fact. They are generally rebuttable in
nature and require no further proof to disprove the facts admitted in a court of law unless the
court asks for the same.

Case Laws:-
In, Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam
The Supreme Court of India explained the effects of admission, that admissions are generally
true and clear of any ambiguity, and they shall be considered as the best proof for proving any
fact in issue or relevant fact by the admission of certain facts. On the other hand, the informal
admission which is made during the day to day activity just help in bringing the facts either by
an oral or written statement by the admission of either party.
In CBI v/s V .C. Shukla
The Supreme Court has lifted the concept of admission and confession; and explained the
difference that discretionary and undeviating cognizance of guilt is confession, and the
confession made by the accused may be used as a piece of negative evidence against him. But
on the other hand, admissions acknowledged by the person admission the fact may not be
considered under the preview of Section 4 that is conclusive proof of facts admitted, and the
admitted matter or facts can only be considered as substantive or probative evidence of
admission.
 Difference between Confession and Admission:-

S.
Confession Admission
No.

The confession is something which is made by

the person who is charged with any criminal
When any person voluntarily acknowledges the
1. offences and such statements may infer any
existence of any facts in issue or facts.
reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is
guilty of a crime.

The concept of confession usually deals with the The concept of admission usually deals with the
2. criminal proceedings and there is no such civil proceedings and section 17 specifically deal
specific section defining confession. with the definition of admission.

If the confessions are purposefully and are made
on someone’s own will then it may be accepted
3.
as conclusive of the facts confessed by the
confessor.
Admissions may be operated as estoppels
because they are not conclusive as to the facts
admitted by the person who in his statement
admit some facts.

Admissions may be used with respect to the

Confessions are always used or go against the person who has admitted any facts or statements
4.
confessor of the statements. under the exception of Section 21 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

As it is previously observed that admission

Confessions confessed by more than one person
jointly for the same offence can be considered
5.
against other accused of the same crime under
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
cannot be used against the person who is
admitting the facts by any statements as they
don’t have much probative evidentiary value.
Hence the admission made by the different
personalities of the same suit cannot be used as
evidence against other persons.

Admission gives the conclusion about the

Confession is the direct admission of matter or
liability of the person who is admitting any facts
6. facts of the cases either in the form of a written
or matter either in the form of oral or written
or oral statement.
statements.
Types of Confession and process of recording confession:-

Formal Confession
Formal confession is also known as Judicial Confession and those statements which are made
before an office of magistrate or in the court of law during any criminal proceedings are known
as formal or judicial confession. A judicial confession not much other than a “plea of guilty”
as per the provision explained under Article 20(3) if Indian Constitution otherwise any
confession made against the person who is making the confession will have no evidentiary
value and he cannot be concluded guilty of any offence on the behalf of such confession.

Judicial confessions should not be mixed up with informal confession though being a part of
the same branch but both have different values and relevancy in determining the accused’s
guilt. There may be some arguments stating that a conviction can be arranged even on the basis
of an extra-judicial confession but on the other hand we must also see that there is no reason in
neglecting the arrangement of conviction solely based on the judicial confession. So a
confession made by the accused where his statements are leading himself to the bar is probative
evidence to prove his guilt but all such confession shall be made in the presence of a magistrate
or in a court of law. On the other side the court must take care of all the necessary steps to
check if the confession made by the accused which may prove his guilt must be voluntary and
true, so that no innocent can be charged for wrongful act of others as provided in Article 20(3)
of the Indian Constitution which talks about ‘self-incrimination’.

Informal Confession
Informal confession is also known as extrajudicial confession and those statements which are
made at any place other than the place where there is an absence of magistrate or at any place
other than the court is considered as an extra-judicial confession. It is not necessary that the
statements should have been addressed to any definite individual. Just like in the principle of
judicial confession, informal confession can also be made in the form of prayer, the informal
confession is in any private room or a self-conversation. But the court has to take care that no
matter judicial or extrajudicial confession, the confession by the accused must be consistent
with Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution which say ‘No one should be compelled to give
evidence against himself’ that means the confession should be on the will of the confessor and
must be true, then only a person can be charged for any criminal offence.

A person expressing the guilt of the offence he committed to any private person like any friend
or his related persons than such commission of a crime will cover the aspects of extrajudicial
confession. Though both judicial and extrajudicial confession can be accepted in the court but
both have different evidentiary value or different probative value so as to establish any fact.
Which means a conviction will not solely be based on the confession rather the court will test
the extrajudicial confession to make any person guilty of any offence committed by him. What
makes the extra-judicial confession different from judicial confession is that extrajudicial
confession can be made to any private person which also includes a judicial officer in his
private capacity. The extra-judicial confession in some cases also restricts a magistrate to
record confession which he is not empowered under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh the Supreme Court in this case held that an extra-judicial
confession’s value only increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion
of the case otherwise the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of
the confession made by him.

In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of
deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the
credibility of the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the
court to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise
a person who is not so trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any inference
to prove the guilt of the accused.

In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court while deciding the case has made few
principles in the form of guidelines where the court has to check such principles before
admitting the confession of the accused, the following principles mentioned by the Supreme
Court are:

Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of evidence by itself and the court
must examine such statements efficiently.
Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person’s own will and such statements must be
true.
The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly increases when it is supported by
other such evidence.
The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other fact in issue is proven in the
judicial proceedings.
Retracted confession
The English meaning of retraction is ‘the action of drawing back something’ retraction
confession is a type of confession which is previously voluntarily made by the confessor but
afterwards it is revoked or retracted by the same confessor. Retracted confession can be utilised
against the person who is confessing some retracted statements if it is substantiated by another
independent and corroborative evidence.

In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court, in this case, lifted that a retracted
confession has enough values to form any other legal grounds to establish any conviction only
if the Court satisfies that it was true and was on someone’s own will. But the Court has to
testify that the conviction cannot be solely be made on such confession until and unless they
are corroborated.

Confession by co-accused: When there are more than one accused in a case and they are jointly
prosecuted for the same offence, and when any of them confesses any statements against
himself in such a way that he may be proved guilty of that offence then the court on such
believes may prosecute other accused also who are jointly persecuted in the same offence.

Illustration- If three persons Aman, Vinod and Vijay are charged jointly for the same offence
and they are prosecuted for the murder of Harsh. And during the judicial proceedings, Aman
gives confessions that he along with Vinod and Vijay killed Harsh and if the statements of the
Aman are recognised as true statements then the court may use the confession of Aman against
all the accused and can prove the guilt of Vinod and Vijay also. Evidentiary value of different
types of confessions

Judicial confession
Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act give the evidentiary value to the judicial confession and
expresses that a confession made in the presence of magistrate or in the court which is recorded
by the magistrate as prescribed by the law then such confession shall be presumed to be true
and genuine confession and the accused can be tried with the offence. Section 164 of CrPC
empowers magistrate to record confession so it is not necessary that which magistrate recorded
the confession unless he is restricted to record the confession. Hence, for raising the
presumption the identity of the accused must be clear and proved in the confession to persecute
him for the guilt of the offence he committed.

Extra-judicial confession
Though extra-judicial confession don’t have much evidentiary value as compared to judicial
confession but in the case of a written confession the writing of the accused itself is one of the
best evidence available to the court to charge the accused of the offence. And if the confession
is not available in the form of written statements then the court may test the oral confession of
the accused which was made to any other person. On the court’s discretion and satisfaction,
the statements of the accused to any other person may be admissible and thereafter the accused
may be prosecuted for the offence on which he is charged.

Retracted confession
Retracted confession has circumstantial evidentiary that the cognizance of any offence the
police investigate the case on the basis of their investigation they examine the witnesses, fact
in issues, accused and many more things. If in the opinion of investigation, police found that
the accused is guilty of a particular offence then they submit a report to the concerned
magistrate or the court. During the court proceeding, the magistrate has to take pieces of
evidence and examines the accused and if on the behalf of investigation report the courts find
someone guilty of any particular offence then the court shall direct the accused to confess the
statements again. When the trial begins the magistrate has to ask the accused that if he is guilty
of an offence or not and if the accused don’t plead guilty then he may retract all the confession
made to the police during the police investigation and must substantiate his retracted
confession. So the value of retracted evidence has circumstantial evidentiary value, therefore,
the court has to make any inference very cautiously.

Confession by co-accused
The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana held that the confessions made
by the co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and they cannot be considered as a
substantive piece of evidence. Therefore the confession made by the co-accused can only be
used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out by other probative evidence.

When is a confession irrelevant?

Sections 24, 25, 26 and relevant part of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with
condition that when can confession be irrelevant.

Section 24 of the same Act describes different instances when a confession on the basis of such
instances becomes irrelevant. Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession
made by a person who is accused of some offence is irrelevant if such confession comes out of
any inducement, threat or promise and such instances have proceeded from a person in
authority like police, magistrate, court etc., the other condition of this section is that
inducement, threat or promise should be in reference to charge of any offence and all such
inducements, threat or promise should give benefit of temporal nature.

For better understanding, we may divide the complete structure into 4 different essentials that
are:

1. The confession must be out of inducement, threat or promise, inducement, etc.

2. Such confession should proceed from a person in authority.
3. It should relate to the charge in question.
4. It should have the benefit of temporal nature or disadvantage.
Thus, when these conditions are fulfilled then the confession becomes irrelevant.

Confession to Police, Police Custody and effect of police presence

The essence of commission can be found in different statutes but Section 24 to 30 of Evidence
Act and section 162 to 164 of CrPC specifically deals with a confession.

Section 25 provides that “No statements made to a Police Officer shall be considered as a
confession for the purpose of proving that confession against that person who is accused to the
case”. The terms explained under Section 25 of this Act has vital importance which makes sure
that any confession made by the accused to the police officer under any circumstances until
provided, is totally not admissible as evidence in a court of law against the accused to prove
his guilt.

Section 26 prohibits the judicial bodies to prove the guilt of accused by his confession which
is made to police in police custody. Section 26 imposes a partial ban on provisions stated in
Section 25 that confession made to the police officer in police custody may be admissible if
the confession recorded in the immediate presence of a magistrate.

Confession in further discovery of facts

Section 27 lift the concept of the relevance of information received from the accused by
irrelevant confess made to police or in police custody which may help in further discovery of
facts of the cases. Section 27 provides that whenever a fact is forcefully discovered in the
course of receiving information from accused during a police investigation or in the police
custody and whenever such information leads to the discovery of other relevant facts they may
be distinctly be proved.

In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, while deciding the case stated that Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted as to lift and to remove the ban provided in section
25 and 26 of the Act in such a way that- Section 25 and 26, absolutely bans the admission of
any confession made to the police or in police custody but the objects of Section 27 provides
the admission of statements made by an accused even to the Police Officer and the objective
explained by the Supreme Court was that such confession may help in further discovery of
facts which may help the court to prove other facts related to the case.
 Dying Declaration

Introduction
Whenever any offence has been committed, there is always the two persons, who voraciously
knew what actually happened i.e. the Accused, who commit the offence and the other one is
Victim, with whom offence had been committed.
In order to prove their positions, and make one’s story to be true, they give Statements to judge
but their story one cannot rely on the veracity of statements which they made to support their
stories, as it may be prejudiced or untrue so generally, the role of Witness becomes crucial to
determine the truth.
But there is a condition when the statement made by the person to be treated as true evidence
in spite of the fact that he made the statement in his own favour and hardly any doubt behind
the reason for that statement. That condition is Dying Declaration.
Dying Declaration is a statement made by the person while he was dying and states the reason
for his death. The statement given by the dying person can be circumstantial or tells the cause
for his death. Hence, the only statement given just before the death of a person is called Dying
Declaration. The person who is conscious of Compos Mentis and knows that death is about to
happen can make a declaration and state the cause of his death and that statement will be
Admissible and treated as Evidence in the Court. Declaration made by the deceased person can
be in oral, written and by conduct. The word Dying Declaration explain the word itself.

Definition
In Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act defines when the statement is made by the person as
the cause of his death, or as any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his
loss of life, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such
statements made by the person are relevant whether the person who made them was alive or
was not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and whatever may
be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as Evidence and Admissible in a
Court of law. The reason behind this can be followed by Latin maxim Nemo Mariturus
Presumuntur Mentri which means that “Man Will Not Meet His Maker with Lying on His
Mouth. More precisely in our Indian law, it is the fact that the dying man can never lie or Truth
sits on the lips of dying man. Hence, the Dying Declaration is Admissible and considered as
Evidence in Court, and can be used as a weapon to punish the culprit.

Types of Dying Declaration

There is no particular form to be employed in making the Dying Declaration. It can be Oral,
Written, Gestures & Signs, Thumb impression, Incomplete and can also be in the form of
Question Answer. However, there must be a distinct and definite assertion on the part of the
person who produces the statement. Possibly the declaration should be in written form in the
exact words stated by the person who made the statement. When a magistrate records the dying
declaration, then it should be in Question-Answer form as the magistrate will opt the maximum
information rightly, as in some cases dying declaration becomes the sole way to help in the
conviction of the accused.
Gesture and Signs
In the case of Queen-Empress v. Abdullah the appellant was charged with the offence of murder
before the Court of Session. That he had murdered one DULARI, a prostitute by cutting her
throat through RAZOR. It seems that one-morning dulari with her throat cut was taken to the
police station and from there to the dispensary. She was alive till the morning. The post-mortem
report shows that the windpipe and the anterior wall of the gullet had been cut through. When
Dulari was taken to the police station, she was questioned by her mother in the presence of a
sub-inspector. She was again questioned by the sub-inspector, deputy magistrate and
subsequently by the assistant surgeon.

She was unable to speak but conscious and able to make gestures and signs. Magistrate asked
dulari, as who had wounded her, but due to the injured condition dulari was unable to speak.
After that, the magistrate mentioned several names one by one and asked if they had wounded
her. Dulari moves her hand forward and backwards and made negative and affirmative signs.
Subsequently, the magistrate asked whether Abdullah had wounded her, for that dulari waved
her hand made the sign in the affirmative, the magistrate recorded the statement. After that
question was put to her that if she been wounded with a knife or sword. In this regard, dulari
makes a negative sign, again magistrate asked her if she had been wounded with the RAZOR.
She in answer to this made an affirmative sign.
In this way, the magistrate records the dying declaration of Dulari and the same was accepted
as evidence to prosecute Abdullah.

Oral and written

When the person gives the name of the murderer to a person present and written by any of them
then it is a relevant dying declaration. However, people may dispose of the name of the mugger
orally.
An oral dying declaration is admissible in evidence as an exception to the general rule of
evidence that hereby evidence is no evidence in the eyes of law. The oral dying declaration
made before his wife, father-in-law and other near relatives were made in the conscious state.

In the case of Amar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan. The deceased’s mother and brother gave the
evidence, that the deceased made the statement month prior to the incident of suicide by her
that the appellant, her husband used to taunt the deceased saying that she had come from a
hunger house and the appellant himself go to the house of deceased and asked for 10.000/-. It
was held that the dying declaration and appellant were convicted under section 304B and 498A
of IPC. The Court referred to Pakala Narain Swamy v. Emperor. In which Lord Atkin: held
that the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant will be
admissible if such transaction has some proximate effect.

Incomplete Dying Declaration

Dying declaration made by the person, which is found to be incomplete cannot be admissible
as evidence. When the condition of the deceased is grave and at his own request a statement
made by him in the presence of the doctor was later taken by the police but could not be
completed as the deceased fell into a coma from which he could not recover. It was held that
the dying declaration was not admissible in court as the declaration appears to be incomplete
on the face of it. But the statement, though it is incomplete in the sense but conveys the
declarant all necessary information or what he wanted to state, yet stated as complete in respect
of certain fact then the statement would not be excluded on the ground of its being incomplete.
The deceased stated, “I was going home when I came near the house of Abdul Majid, Sohail
shot me from the bush. He ran away. I saw.” this was the dying declaration made by the
deceased and further was unable to answer the questions. It was held that there is no question
of incompleteness so far as the context of the case is concerned. In the case of Muniappan v.
State of Madras. The deceased made the dying declaration as follows:
“Sir,
This day 24th January 1960 in the afternoon at 12:30 Muniappan son kola goundan of kamnav-
kurechi stabbed me in my body with a knife.”
Soon the deceased died after the statement. His thumb impression was taken after he was dead.
This declaration against Muniappan was complete and admissible.

Question- Answer form

Dying Declaration can be made in the form of Question-answer. The deceased, in some of her
statement, did not state the actual part played by the appellant. She merely answered the
questions put to her. The court held that when questions are put differently than the answer will
also appear to be different. At first glance, the detailed description of the offence may appear
to be missing but the statement of the deceased construed reasonably. However, when the
magistrate records the dying declaration, it must be preferred to be recorded in the form of a
question-answer must be preferred. If there is nothing to doubt that the person who records the
statement made by the deceased exact word to word, would not make any difference merely
because the same was not recorded in the form of question and answer.

Reason for admitting dying declarations in evidence

A dying declaration is admitted in evidence that is truly based on the principle of “Nemo
moriturns proesumitur mentiri (man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth). Dying
declaration does not require any corroboration as long as it creates confidence in the mind of
the Court and free from any form of tutoring.
In case Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan. Court held that dying declaration is admitted upon
consideration is made in extremity; when the maker of the statement is at his bed end, every
hope of this world is gone; and every motive of falsehood is silenced and mind induced to
speak only truth. Indian law recognises this fact that “a dying man seldom lies”.

Fitness of the declarant should be examined

At the time of giving a declaration, the person who’s making the statement must be in a fit state
of mind. If the court has the slightest doubt about the mental soundness of the maker of dying
declaration, it is unsafe and unfair for the base on such a statement.
The mere fact that the victim in his dying declaration did not make any reference to injuries
received by the accused is not a genuine ground that decides the merit of dying declaration.
Where the dying declaration was recorded by the doctor who himself certified that the patient
was in a fit condition for giving the statement, his non-mentioning that the patient was in a fit
mental condition and throughout remained conscious would be of no consequence. In case
State of M.P. v. Dhirendra kumar. The mother-in-law of the deceased was in the position to
reach the upstairs within 5 to 6 minutes after hearing the cry of the deceased. According to the
opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the deceased was able to speak about 10-15 minutes. The
Supreme Court did not agree with the view of the High Court that the deceased is not in a
position to make the dying declaration, as it was reaffirmed by the autopsy report and
circumstances of the case that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to talk when her mother-
in-law reached the place where the deceased was dying.

When the deceased made a dying declaration and while stating that fell into a coma before
completing the statement, it would have a serious effect on his capacity to make such a
statement. Certificate of fitness given by the doctor with regard to this condition of the
deceased. Such an opinion should be accepted by the court. If the circumstances so demand,
such opinion must be carefully balanced with all other surrounding facts and circumstances.

Who should record the dying declaration?

Any person can record the dying declaration made by the deceased, but the person who is
recording the dying declaration must have some nexus with the deceased either
circumstantially or by some fact. However, the doctor or police officer hold more value as
compared to the normal person. As far as the dying declaration is concerned the magistrate
entrusted to record the dying declaration, as the statement recorded by him is considered more
evidential rather than statement recorded by the doctor, police officer and by the normal person.
Magistrate that it will have more credential value and reliability.
Recorded by a normal person
A dying declaration can be recorded by a normal person. As in some circumstances where the
judicial magistrate, police officer and doctor is not available, the Court cannot reject the dying
solely statement made before the normal person. But the person who records the statement
must show that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and conscious while making the
statement no matter if the statement is not recorded by Judicial Magistrate, doctor and police
officer. The statement is admissible in a court of law.
Recorded by the doctor or a police officer
If there is no time to call the magistrate keeping in the mind the deteriorated condition of the
declarant, the statement can be recorded by the doctor or by a police officer. But one condition
must be coupled with it that while recording the statement there shall one or two-person present
there as a witness otherwise the Court may find the statement to be suspicious. Moreover, the
statement record by the doctor, later endorses that the declarant was not in a stable condition
and his statement would not be considered as evidence, rectify by the witness that the deceased
was in a fit state of mind and conscious to make the declaration. It was held in the case of N.
Ram v. State that the medical opinion cannot wipe out the direct testimony of an eye witness
which states that the deceased was in a fit mental condition and able to make a dying
declaration.
Recorded by the magistrate
When the deceased statement recorded by the competent magistrate has deemed to be
considered as reliable and attracts the evidentiary value as he presumed to know how the dying
declaration should be recorded and he is a neutral person. Moreover, the magistrate has
empowered to record the dying declaration under 164 of Cr.P.C.
Section 164 Cr. P.C states that Subsection (1) gives power to the magistrate to record the
statement of the dying person, no matter whether he has jurisdiction over that case or not, and
in case where the statement recorded by the magistrate who has no jurisdiction in that case
subsection (6) will apply. Here the word “statement” does not confine to only the statement by
the deceased and witness but also include a statement of the accused, in order to satisfy himself,
but the accused statement will not amount to a confession.
Subsection (1) states that: any judicial magistrate and metropolitan magistrate shall have the
power to record the dying statement made by the dying person, whether the magistrate has
jurisdiction in that particular case or not, he will be able to record the state provided under this
chapter or by any other law for the time being enforced, or at the time before the
commencement of trial and investigation.
Section 164 provides a warning. Under this provision the magistrate who record the statement
should tell the accused that he has to make only statement which shall not be amount to
confession, but if he did so, then the confession can be used against him for the purpose of
conviction. This is the sine qua non for recording confession. The other important requirement
is that the Magistrate must raise questions from the wrongdoer to satisfy himself that the
confession made by the accused was voluntary so as to enable him to give the requisite
certificate under subsection(4) of this chapter. The judicial magistrate here tell the accused that
he is not bound to make a confession, but he did not ask the question from the accused in order
to satisfy in question, whether the statement made by the accused is voluntary or not.
In Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana the Court held that, Where the Magistrate did not clear
the rule that the statement made by the accused should not be amount to confession, if he does
so then it will be used as evidence against him, cannot be considered. The Magistrate must
satisfy himself that the statement made by the accused voluntary, no pressure or force was used
on the accused while making the confession. Any mark of the person of the accused to vitiate
the voluntary character of the confession. When was held not only inadmissible under the
section but it could not be used under the other provision of Indian Evidence Act such as
sections 21 & 29.

Evidentiary value of dying declaration

In the case of K.R Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, it was observed by the court that the evidentiary
value of dying declaration made by the deceased:

There is no doubt that the dying declaration is admissible in court under section 32(1) of the
Indian Evidence Act. And there is no compulsion while making of dying declaration to take an
oath, but the truth of the statement can be determined by the cross-examination. The court has
to ascertain necessary measures to check the sanctity of the statement made by the deceased.
As in India law, it was presumed that the man who is going to die, not meet his maker with a
lie on his lips this is because, when the person is at his bed end all the desire and greed of
person come to an end so probably there is no motive to lie. After that, the court must be
satisfied with the condition that the deceased must be in a fit state of mind while making the
statement. After all the measures assured by the court and satisfied that the statement is made
voluntarily and true then it will be sufficient to accept the statement to finding conviction even
without the corroboration.

In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay Apex Court laid down the following principles related to
dying declaration:

(i) There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of
conviction unless corroborated. A true & voluntary declaration needs no corroboration.
(ii) A dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence than any other piece of
evidence;
(iii) Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances
in which the dying declaration was made.
(iv) A dying declaration stands on the same footing as other pieces of evidence & has
to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances & with reference to the principle
governing the weight of evidence.
(v) A dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the
proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, &, as far as
practicable in the words of the maker of the declaration stands on a much higher footing
 than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all
the infirmities of human memory & human character.

Exception of dying declaration

There are many circumstances in which the statement made by the dying person is not
admissible in a court of law. These conditions are as follows:
If there is no question for consideration about the cause of death of the deceased. For example,
if a person in his declaration state anything which is not remote or having a connection with
the cause of death than the statement is not relevant and hence not be admissible.
1. The statement which is inconsistent has no value and cannot be considered as
evidentiary in nature.
2. The statement made by the deceased should be free from any influential pressure and
should be made spontaneous.
3. It is perfectly allowed to the court if they reject any untrue statement which
contradicting in nature.
4. If the statement is incomplete in the sense which means it cannot answer the relevant
questions which are necessary to found guilty, and on the counterpart, statement deliver
nothing so it will not be deemed to consider.
5. Doctor’s opinion and the medical certificate should with the statement and support that
the deceased is capable of understanding what statement he makes.
6. If the statement is not according to the prosecution. In this regard, the following points
should be taken into consideration by the apex court.
7. While making the statement deceased must be in fit mind of the state.
8. Should be recorded by the magistrate or by a police officer and person in a case when
deceased was so precarious
9. A dying declaration should be recorded in question-answer form and written in words
of the persons exactly who gives the statement.

Dying Declaration should be free and spontaneous

Dying declaration due to compulsion or pressure not be relied upon whereas dying declaration
free from any biased relied upon. As it was held in the case of Krishna Lal v. Jagun Nath that
the wife was burnt by the husbands-in-law and in her dying declaration she held that she was
not burnt by her husbands-in-law and she was believed.

Conclusion
The dying declaration is not specifically mentioned in our penal law under Section 32(1) of
IPC. It is the statement made by the person who is going to die, and that statement will be
considered as evidence in court, how his death caused and who the mugger is. There are many
conditions that relied upon the dying declaration that it should be in an adequate manner as
dying declaration is the weapon who convicted the accused and stood as strong evidence. The
admissibility of dying declaration accepted in our Indian court because the law presumes that
in Leterm Mortem i.e. in his last parting words the man will never lie as anyone will meet his
maker with a lie on his lips. This is because a man who is going to die, end with all his needs
and wants and his interest is no more passionate for self-deeds so he seldom lies.