PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH PAPER ON-

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DYING

DECLARATION

SUBMITTED TO-
ASST.PROFESSOR-APRAJITA VERMA
SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBMITEED BY-
ABHAY DEV
20191BAL9001
SECTION-4
Contents
1. ABSTRACT................................................................................3
2. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................3
3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAW.10
4. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS................................................11
5. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO DEATH..........................13
6. DECLARATIONS AND COMPETENCY...............................13
7. EVIDENTIARY VALUE..........................................................14
8. BROADENING THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 32 (1)................19
9. CONCLUSION.........................................................................20
ABSTRACT
The Indian Evidence Act's section 32(1) addresses dying declarations.
In terms of evidentiary law, Dying Declarations have always been an
integral feature of common law systems. It is a written or verbal
declaration of the declarant's facts outlining the specifics of his
death. A critical academic investigation must be conducted on the
contentious subject of dying declaration to ensure that it changes to
reflect contemporary concerns. This essay aims to analytically dissect
the true meaning of a deathbed declaration by examining relevant
legal precedents and statutes. The second goal of the paper is to
conduct a comparison with comparable common law jurisdictions.
The paper's final objective is to Analyse the notion of dying
announcements critically.
I) Uncertainty over the protocol for making a death
pronouncement, such as whether a medical report is necessary
or not, the difficulty facing the investigating officer, etc.
II) Suggestions to Curb Evolving Times and Broadening the Sphere
of Section 32(1).

INTRODUCTION
“Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire”, A man will not meet
his Maker with a falsehood in his mouth, according to the
aforementioned legal Maxim. A dying declaration is a
proclamation, or a statement made by a person who is on his
deathbed or just before he passes away, despite the fact that
the Indian Evidence Act, 18721 makes no mention of it. This
1
Indian evidence act,1872.
proclamation may be expressed orally, in writing, in conduct,
or even by signs and actions. The justification for the
aforementioned legal maxim is that it is assumed that no one
will be on his deathbed. This person may have an
unconscious urge to clear their conscience in their final
moments2. The idea of a deathbed declaration also carries a
religious undertone. Given how calm and solemn the setting
is, the law sees it as obligatory to accept the veracity of such
claims. It is common knowledge that someone who is close
to death won't tell lies or sway the course of justice. The goal
of the study article is to establish a thorough theoretical
knowledge of dying declaration and to create a comparison
of dying declaration in India and England, two common law
jurisdictions. Additionally, a thorough investigation of the
vagueness of death declarations will be conducted, followed
by criticism of the same. Throughout the paper, suggestions
will be offered. For this paper, secondary sources including
decisions, scholarly works, papers, and materials from the
course instructor's lectures were utilized. The concept of a
dying declaration is sufficiently interesting to legal
enthusiasts due to the variety of perspectives from which it
may be viewed. For instance, this research aims to Analyse
how the concept is molded in the context of two common
law systems. The law describes which pieces of evidence are
pertinent and admissible in court. The guiding concept of
evidence law is that nothing is admissible that cannot be
proven or tested in a court of law. The administration of an
oath in court and the cross-examination of a specific
2
Roderic Munday,Musings on the dying declaration, 22 Anglo -am.L.Rev. 42,42(1993).
testimony or piece of evidence aid in proving the reliability of
that testimony or piece of evidence. Hearsay is not typically
taken into account as evidence; however, S.32(1) of the act
makes an exemption. In India, declarations of impending
death are admissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.
"In order for a statement to be admitted under the
aforementioned section of the Act, the party attempting to
introduce the declaration must establish one of the
following: The statement sought to be admitted was made by
a person who is deceased, cannot be located, whose
attendance cannot be obtained without a significant amount
of time and expense, or who is incapable of testifying. Under
any of the conditions listed in Subsections (1) to (8) of Section
32 of the Evidence Act, such a statement should have been
given. If the individual making a dying declaration even has a
remote chance of surviving, his declaration won't be allowed
to be used in court. Even though these assertions have
already been supported by a number of court rulings, they
still need to pass a few requirements in order to be
considered proof. A declaration must satisfy the reliability
test because, first, the accuser was not present when the
statement was made and, second, there is no chance for a
cross-examination of the accuser to confirm the veracity of
the statement. The test of proximity should be used as the
second test. The Supreme Court's ruling in Pakala Narayan
Swami v. Emperor3 was followed by the explanation of the
conditions covered by the preceding provision in Onkar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
3
Pakala Narayana Swami V Emperor,AIR 1939 PC 47
The circumstances can only contain the acts done when and
where the death was caused, and they must have some
proximate relevance to the actual occurrence. Therefore, a
statement that only suggests a criminal purpose cannot be
accepted into evidence unless it is directly related to the
transaction in question and serves as its circumstantial
evidence. Evidence has been presented in the current case
regarding comments made by the deceased before this
incident that could point to the crime's motive. Simply said, a
dying pronouncement does not apply solely in homicide
circumstances. S.32 of the Act also applies in a suicide-
related situation. The aforementioned declaration is thus
equally pertinent to proving a case of suicide. According to
section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, a suicide note that was
discovered in the deceased's clothing is admissible as
evidence because it is in the character of a dying declaration.
A peculiarity of Indian law is that the "expectation of death"
has little bearing on whether a dying declaration is
admissible, as stated in Section 32 (1) of the Act, 114. Given
that the Supreme Court has acknowledged R v. Woodcock 4,
this is incredibly odd. in several instances. "The general
principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that
they are declarations made in extremis, when the party is at
the point of death, when every hope in this world is gone,
when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and when the
mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak
the truth," is the justification for the aforementioned case. A
circumstance thus grave and terrible is regarded by the law

4
R V. Woodak (1787) 1 Leach 500,504.
as imposing an obligation comparable to that imposed by a
positive oath taken in a court of justice. Since Indian law
permits the acceptance of dying pronouncements even when
a person is not in a condition of imminent death, these types
of justifications become challenging to refute. Therefore, he
is under no psychological or theological pressure to make a
sincere dying declaration. A conviction can occur solely on
the basis of a dying declaration if the remarks are voluntary
and true. However, if it differs from the prosecution's version
or that version contains an error, it might cease to be
reliable. The Supreme Court summarizes this as follows:
Given that the creator of the deathbed declaration is
unavailable for cross-examination, it is up to the court to
determine whether the declaration inspires complete trust.
The court must be convinced there was no chance of tutoring
or prodding.
The victim should have been in a sound mental state,
according to the doctor's certificate. It was unacceptable for
the magistrate to express satisfaction with the declarant's
mental state, especially if the physician was Available. Only
when the deceased's condition was so critical that there was
no other option available should the executive magistrate
and police officer to record the dying declaration. A dying
declaration could take the form of questions and answers
written in the declarant's own words. However, the court
cannot be overly formal. In light of the foregoing, it can be
said that once a dying person's statement and the testimony
of the witnesses supporting it pass the court's rigorous
examination, it becomes an extremely significant and
trustworthy piece of evidence. If the court is convinced that
the dying person's declaration is accurate and without
embellishment, it can be used alone to record a conviction
even in the absence of further evidence of guilt 5. A deathbed
pronouncement and a few additional crucial prerequisites
are as follows.
1) After taking all the necessary safety measures, an
experienced magistrate recorded the declaration.
2) The declaration was written down in the precise words
that the dying individual uttered.
3) This dying declaration must be documented soon after the
assault or any other accident so that there is no risk of
anyone adding their opinions to the declaration regarding
how the accident happened or anything else.
4) The dying person had plenty of opportunity and time to
make the statement.
5) It is a lawful declaration as long as the dead had his facts
straight and his various remarks flowed together and were
pertinent to the situation at hand.
Regarding the corroboration of the declaration, the Court
only needs to be convinced that the dying declaration was
made voluntarily and is accurate. Second, the person making
the declaration needs to be in good mental health. The
Supreme Court ruled in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab 6
5
Viramji mohatji V. State of Gujarat,2005(2)Glr 1622

6
Harban’s Singh V. State of Punjab,AIR 1962 Sc 439
that: "A deathbed pronouncement does not need to be
supported by additional evidence in order for a conviction to
be predicated on it; this is neither a requirement of law nor
good judgement. The testimony provided by a dying
declaration must be taken into account in the same way as
testimony from any other witness, though there are
undoubtedly some unique circumstances that must be taken
into account when evaluating a dying declaration that do not
apply when determining the significance of a statement a
witness to the event makes in court."
A doctor may record the dying declaration in the absence of a
police station or a magistrate. It is the doctor's responsibility
to document such a diagnosis if he believes the patient has a
limited time left to live. He is also the finest at considering
the patient's mental and physical well-being. Consequently, a
doctor's recording of the declaration of death is admissible in
court.7
In the case of Sunder v. State of Uttaranchal, 8 the dying
statement was contested only on the grounds that the
treating physician had not attested to the patient's mental
and physical well-being. Rejecting this argument, the
Supreme Court determined that the Magistrate was correct
to accept the dying declaration because he had already
obtained the victim's doctor's opinion regarding his mental
state and had satisfied himself by doing so. The Court also
found other pieces of supporting evidence.
7
[vol.1] Rajendra A [Evolution of Dying Declaration or whether dying Declaration Still Sacrosanct?] [Criminal
law journal,2002]

8
Sunder V. State of Uttaranchal,(2016),10 SCC 611.
Similarly in the case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra,9 it
was held that: The court must also determine if the victim
was conscious and had the chance to see and recognize the
attacker. Therefore, the court typically looks to the expert
testimony in order to determine if the deceased was in a fit
mental state to make the dying declaration. However, if
there is evidence from eyewitnesses that the deceased was
conscious and in a fit state to make the declaration, the
medical opinion will not be taken into account. Likewise, it
cannot be argued that the dying declaration is invalid
because there is no medical certification attesting to the
declarant's mental soundness.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH

LAW
This research aims to Analyse some of the variations
between English and Indian laws regarding dying
declarations. According to English law, a dying statement
must be made when the person has no chance of survival
and a consciousness of impending death. In contrast, it is
irrelevant under Indian law whether there was any
expectation of death at the time of the statement. The dying
pronouncement in R V Jenkins,10 "with no possibility of

9
Laxman V. State of Maharashtra,2001, 6 SCC 710.

10
R V. Jenkins, (1869) LR 1 CRR 187.
recovery." The deceased later changed her will, adding the
word "present" before "hope," though. She made the
following statement when she passed away: "with no present
hope of my recovery." The English court decided that the
change to the declaration does not fit under the definition of
a dying declaration because it suggests that she had a remote
chance of recovering. The statement made by the person
(since deceased) would be allowed into evidence in India
under the application of the rules outlined in section 32 of
the Indian Evidence Act. The problem with the English
interpretation is that courts would have to determine
whether or not each instance involved knowledge of
impending death; this would be up to the judge's judgement
and could lead to disparities.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
Regarding how the dying declaration is used in the two
nations, there is also a striking difference. To better
comprehend this distinction in applicability, let's use the
fictitious example of a rape case. In India, a rape victim's
deathbed declaration is admissible even if the accusation
against her does not include her death, so long as the issue of
her death is raised throughout the course of the rape case.
However, the English court is of the opinion that dying
declarations are only acceptable where the charge against
the deceased is the topic of the declaration. As a result, in
England, a rape victim's dying declaration cannot be used to
establish rape. This is so that the charge in these situations
isn't based on the death of the deceased. The U.K. viewpoint
in this regard differs from the Indian perspective due to the
additional requirement that death be the topic of the
investigation. 11Therefore, unlike India, where dying
statements are admissible in both civil and criminal courts,
dying declarations in England are only applicable to
homicides, which is a more constrained interpretation of
dying declarations.12 The U.K position in this sense varies
from the Indian understanding as there is an added necessity
of death being the subject matter during investigation.
Therefore, dying declarations in England are subject to
homicides only which is a more narrowed understanding of
dying declarations when compared to India, where dying
declarations are admissible in both civil and criminal courts.

CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO DEATH

Another crucial element for dying pronouncements to be
accepted is for them to be directly related to the "cause of
death."13 This is carefully adhered to in the UK. Any further
information that is unrelated to the deceased is immediately
11
R V. Mead and Belt, (1823),1 Lew C.C. 184.

12
SUDIPTO SARKAR AND V. R. MANOHAR, SARKAR ON EVIDENCE PG 634(15 th ED, 1999)

13
Peter Nicolas, I’m Dying to Tell You What Happened ‘; The Admissibility of Testimonial Dying Declarations
excluded. According to section 32 (1) of the Indian Statute of
Evidence Act, the "cause of death"14of the declarant is also
required. However, in addition to this, any "circumstances of
the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant
are also acceptable." Regarding the admission of evidence,
the word "circumstances of transaction" provides a broader
meaning.
The relationship between "circumstances" and death need
not always be direct. It suffices if the deceased's remarks
make reference to any event that is associated with any of
the actions that led to the death of the deceased. Since the
circumstances of the death are also admissible, it is safe to
argue that Indian notion of dying declaration is more
expansive than that of the U.K.

DECLARATIONS AND COMPETENCY

English law makes it rather plain that a declarant must be just
as qualified as a witness, therefore being too young or
mentally incompetent will prevent a declaration.
It is unclear from the law if this rule is applicable in India.
However, S. 118 of the Indian Evidence Act states that "All
persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court
considers that they are prevented by young age, extreme old
age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of
the same kind, from understanding the questions put to
them, or from giving reasonable answers to those questions."
Therefore, it would appear that in India, being too young or
14
The Indian Evidence Act,1872, Act no.01 of 1872, 32{1) (India)
incompetent would not be sufficient grounds for completely
excluding the declaration. Therefore, declarations of a child
are to be looked at with greater judicial circumspection.15

EVIDENTIARY VALUE
There is a significant variation in their methods, even though
conviction can be gained in both the U.K. and India solely on
the basis of dying declarations. Due to the expectancy of
death, the dying declaration is a reliable piece of evidence in
the UK. In India, the "weight" of the evidence is determined
by the conditions and environment in which it was
produced.16 The court also made a distinction, stating that
the weight given to a dying declaration under section 32 (1)
of the Evidence Act would be lower than the weight given to
such a declaration under common law norms.17 The
justification for this is that a person making a dying
declaration in India would not meet the requisite criteria (as
in the United Kingdom) of believing that a man was aware of
his illness, who knew death was inevitable, and who, as a
result, had given up all chance of living.
It is safe to say based on the aforementioned observations
that Indians have a much more open-minded and expansive
interpretation of the concept of a dying proclamation than do
English people.
The main illogic of this exception is its restriction to murder
and manslaughter, aside from the shaky psychological basis
15
Panchhi V. State of U.p, (1998) Cri LJ 4044 (Sc).
16
Irfan Nabi, Dying Declaration; A Comparative study.
17
Jasunga s/o Akumu V.R, (1954) 21 EACA 331
for the exception and the challenge of demonstrating that
the deceased had a settled hopeless expectancy of death.
There is no logical reason for this restriction, but it does not
apply to rape or armed robbery. Additionally, it is
inconsistent with the contemporary perspective on res
gestae, which correctly places an emphasis on probative
value. There are a few issues with the Indian interpretation of
the dying declaration that must be acknowledged. Truth "sits
upon the lips of dying men," according to the main
justification for a dying proclamation.18
The Indian Evidence Act's Section 32(1), Paragraph 2 makes it
plainly apparent that the declaration need not necessarily
have been made with the expectation of death. This is in
contrast to the English interpretation, which holds that
accepting declarations of impending death is a need. The
paragraph loses the desired sincerity that was so demanded
from the peaceful moment despite being more expansive
than the English understanding. The proverb "a man will not
meet his maker with a falsehood in his mouth" thus clearly
has a religious undertone.19 In the modern culture we live in,
it may not be appropriate to make such a broad assumption
and use it as evidence in court.
However, such a statement may be true for god-fearing and
overly religious people. When motivated by hatred or
retaliation, a declarant may frequently make exaggerated
statements about impending death and aid in the miscarriage
of justice. A dying declaration that was made out of
18
The Law Commission of England in its 245th report on “Evidence in Criminal Proceedings; Hearsay and
Related Topics”.
19
Neha Vijayvarigya, Admissibility of Dying Declaration; whether Justified,pg. 177 (2006).
resentment or desire for vengeance is not admissible as
evidence.20 There does not appear to be much debate over
whether a deathbed pronouncement counts as a significant
piece of evidence. A dying declaration has a different
foundation in India than it does in England. According to
English law, a dying statement's credibility and applicability
are only significant if the speaker is in a hopeless situation
and anticipates passing away soon. In India, the weight that
should be given to a dying declaration depends not on the
assumption of death, which is supposed to ensure that the
declaration is true, but rather on the circumstances and
environment in which it was made, as well as very much on
the circumstances of the record that was made of it. Is it safe
to accept statements made by people who are about to die
without any supporting evidence? It was said in one of the
earlier rulings on dying pronouncements in India that it
would be dangerous to admit such declarations as proof in
the absence of supporting documentation.21 However,
neither a law nor a firm regulation prohibits the use of
deathbed pronouncements as the only proof of guilt; this is
true for both India and England. As a result, it is crucial for
the court to find the correct balance between upholding the
law and defending the rights of the accused. Without cross
questioning, this task is made all the more challenging.
Another criticism of dying declarations is that they can only
be admitted under section 32 when the validity of the

20
Ashutosh Sail, An Analysis of Indian and English Position of Dying Declaration, J 297, cri.L.J.(2005)

21
Ram Nath Madho Prasad V. State of M.P, AIR 1953 (SC) 420.
declarant's death is called into question (1). Let's examine an
example where two brothers, C and D, were killed by gunfire.
D's final statement includes a description of C's passing. D's
dying declaration will be disregarded for the simple reason
that his brother C's death, not his own, was the subject of the
allegation. Professor Wigmore refers to it as a pointless rule
of exclusion. Therefore, to prevent a miscarriage of justice,
such declarations must be understood on a case-by-case
basis and included as evidence. The India Law Commission
remarked that the language of the Provision is now capable
of a wider construction in its sixty-nineth report on the Indian
Proof Act, 1872. Therefore, it was suggested that a
clarification be added to Section 32 (1) on the following lines.
"The facts relating to the death of another person may be
included in the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in the death."22
There is also a procedural ambiguity in how section 32 (1) is
understood. Regarding the manner of declaration and the
audience, Section 32(1) is silent. While it is obvious that a
person making a dying declaration cannot be expected to
follow procedures, the lack of such procedures raises many
concerns.

22
M.G. Amin, Assumptions behind Sanctity of Dying Declarations, pg.175 (1995).
  Does dying declarations fall under the provisions of
Section 162 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
states that any statements made to a police officer
during an inquiry are not admissible?
Even while the courts have been reluctant to accept
admissions made to an investigating officer, the same
provision makes an exemption for matters that fall under the
purview of section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The
practice of giving police officers "dying declarations" must
not be encouraged, the courts have frequently agreed. 23 The
courts should take into consideration deathbed declarations
when there is a plausible explanation for why an investigating
officer was required to get one; nonetheless, they must be
able to determine whether or not the declaration is genuine.
Investigating authorities frequently tamper with the dying
declaration in an effort to have a successful probe. The courts
are understandably wary of this since it could result in a
miscarriage of justice. Situations must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
 What happens in situations where the declarant's
mental fitness for giving declaration was not certified by
the doctors?
The requirement of a doctor's certificate as a prerequisite to
assure the admissibility of a dying declaration is not a rule.
According to courts, the person taking the dying declaration
must be persuaded that the declarant is competent to do
so.24 Even though the lack of a medical certificate has
23
Atul Gandhi V. State of Assam, (1990) Cri. L. J. 1049. Babura V. State of Rajastan,(1993) cr. L, J.2696.
24
Laxman V. State of Maharastra, (2002) Cri LJ 4095
frequently been contested, there are several circumstances
in which calling the doctor was not possible. It would be
ludicrous in such circumstances to fully dismiss the
announcement. Such declarations must not be rejected by
the courts, who must also investigate the declaration's
veracity. Once the courts are persuaded that the declaration
is not made independently of a medical assessment, they
should rely on it.

BROADENING THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 32 (1)

As established previously, according to the law, the English
interpretation of dying pronouncements is more limited than
the Indian interpretation. The Term "circumstances of
transaction" in section 32 (1) is not present in the English
legal records. State of HP,25 the court explained in Rattan
Singh "There need not be a direct link between circumstance
and death, according to the conditions of the transaction. If
there is a connection between the distant circumstances and
the transaction that caused the death, they can also be used
as evidence in court."
It suffices if the deceased's remarks make reference to any
event that is connected to any of the actions that led to the
death of the deceased. Even far-off events may be
considered admissible under this clause as long as they are
connected to the event that caused the death. 26 There may
be some kind of restriction allowed by the term
"circumstance of transaction." Perhaps the term
25
Cri LJ 833; AIR (1997) (SC) 768.
26
Chand Sarda V. State of Maharastra,(1984), AIR 1984 (SC) 1622.
"circumstantial evidence" can be used more broadly to refer
to any pertinent facts that can be admitted as evidence. An
explanation of motive, for instance, cannot be accepted into
evidence unless it is intimately related to the transaction as a
whole.27

CONCLUSION
We can reasonably say that the Indian conception of dying
declarations is much more expansive than the English
conception of the same. It is crucial to remember that the
Indian understanding has some limits. This work has
acknowledged several limitations and offered critiques for
them in its end. The report also makes several crucial points
and attempts to clarify any misunderstandings that can result
from a cursory reading of section 32 (1) of the Indian
Evidence Act. Additionally, have proposed a few changes to
the way the law relates to announcements of impending
death. Different countries have different perspectives on
these claims. However, the only factor that becomes crucial
when determining whether to accept or reject this evidence
is that it strikes the correct balance between the rights of the
accused and the deceased.

REFERENCES
27
C. Narayanan V. State of Kerala, (1992) crt; LJ 286Q.
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Roderick Munday, Musings on the Dying Declaration, 22
Anglo-Am. L. Rev. 42, 42 (1993).
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 (1), Act No. 1 of 1872,
S.32 (1).
 Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3062.
 Sudhakar & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC
2602.
 Ratan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1996).
 Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47
 Onkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 CriL J 1200
(MP)
 State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376
(Karnataka) (DB)
 The Indian Evidence Act, Act no. 01 of 1872, § 32(1).
 R v. Woodcock (1787) 1 Leach 500, 504.
 State of UP v. Madan Mohan. AIR 1989 SC 1519.
 Viramji Mohatji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2)
GLR 1622
 Harbans Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439
 [Vol. 1] Rajendran A, ['Evolution of Dying Declaration or
whether Dying Declaration still Sacrosanct?'] [Criminal
Law Journal, 2002]
 Sunder vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2016), 10 SCC 611.
 Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001, 6 SCC 710.
 R v Jenkins, (1869) LR 1 CCR 187.
 R v. Mead and Belt, (1823), 1 Lew C.C.184.
 SUDIPTO SARKAR & V. R. MANOHAR, SARKAR ON
EVIDENCE PG 634 (15TH ED. 1999)
 Jasunga S/o Akumu v. R, (1954) 21 EACA 331
 The Law Commission of England in its 245th report on
"Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related
Topics"
 Neha Vijayvarigya, Admissibility of Dying Declaration:
Whether Justified, pg. 177 (2006).
 Ashutosh Salil, An Analysis of Indian and English Position
of Dying Declaration, J 297, CriL.J. (2005).
 Ram Nath Madho Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 1953 (SC)
420.
 Supra note 16.
 M.G. Amin, Assumptions behind Sanctity of Dying
Declarations, pg. 175 (1995).
 Atul Gandhi v. State of Assam, (1990) Cri. L. J. 1049.
Babura v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) Cr. L. J.2696.
 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) CriLJ 4095
 CriLJ 833: AIR (1997) (SC) 768.
 Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984), AIR 198A
(5c) 1822