CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Case Analysis On

LAXMAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. DEO NARAYAN SINGH
FACULTY, EVIDENCE LAW
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SUBMITTED BY:
ADITYA SINHA
B.A LL.B. (Hons.), VIth SEMESTER
ENROLLMENT NO. – CUSB2113125011
SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR
CASE DETAILS

Appellant: Laxman

Respondent: State of Maharashtra

Citation: AIR 2002 SC 2973

Coram: G.B. Pattanaik, M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava and D.M.
Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Decided On: 27/08/2002

i
 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this Criminal Appeal, the conviction of the accused-appellant is rooted in the dying
declaration1 of the deceased, Chandrakala. The dying declaration was recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 4). Both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court affirmed
the veracity, voluntariness, and reliability of the dying declaration made by the deceased.
2. According to the evidence presented by the Magistrate, he contacted the patient through the
medical officer on duty. After confirming the patient's ability to make a statement and
ensuring her consciousness and mental alertness, the Magistrate proceeded to record the
statement of the deceased. Additionally, a certificate issued by the doctor indicated that the
patient was conscious at the time of the declaration.
3. The High Court, upon considering the testimony of the Magistrate, the doctor's certificate,
and other circumstantial evidence, concluded that Chandrakala was physically and mentally
capable of making a truthful dying declaration. As a result, the dying declaration was
deemed reliable and admissible as evidence.
4. However, during the appeal process before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the
appellant's counsel cited the decision in Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh2, arguing that since the doctor's certification did not explicitly confirm the patient's
mental fitness to make the statement, the dying declaration should not have been the sole
basis for conviction.
5. In contrast, the State's counsel relied on the decision in Koli Chunilal Savji and another v.
State of Gujarat3, wherein it was held that if the materials on record indicate that the
deceased was fully conscious and capable of making a statement, the absence of an explicit
endorsement from the doctor regarding the patient's mental state should not invalidate the
dying declaration.
6. Given the conflicting interpretations presented by the two decisions from benches of three
learned Judges, the matter was referred to this Constitution Bench by order dated 27-7-2002
for resolution.

1
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 26, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 2023 (India)
2
Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 696
3
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562

ii
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether a certificate from a doctor confirming the declarant's fit mental state necessary to
make a declaration under S. 32? (S. 26 of BSA)
2. Whether a doctor's certificate affirming the patient's consciousness sufficient for making a
declaration under S. 32? (S. 26 of BSA)

iii
 AUTHORITIES

1. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

S. 32: Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, underscores the significance of dying
declarations as a form of evidence in legal proceedings. It acknowledges that such declarations
are often made in extremity when the individual is at the point of death and compelled by the
most powerful considerations to speak only the truth. This principle is encapsulated in the legal
maxim "nemomoriturus prae-sumitur mentire," which signifies that a person is presumed not
to lie when facing death. However, the section also highlights the need for caution in evaluating
the weight to be given to dying declarations due to various factors that may affect their
truthfulness. The court is tasked with ensuring the declaration inspires full confidence in its
truthfulness and correctness, guarding against potential tutoring, prompting, or imagination.
The mental state of the deceased and their capacity to observe and identify the assailant are
crucial considerations, often assessed through medical opinion or eyewitness testimony. Dying
declarations may be oral or in writing, recorded by individuals such as magistrates, doctors, or
police officers, with no strict requirement for a magistrate's presence or a specific form for
recording. Ultimately, the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration must be established,
with certification by a doctor serving as a precaution rather than a strict requirement.

2. BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

S. 26: Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which is slated to replace Section
32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, upon its enforcement from July 1st, 2024, serves a similar
purpose in delineating the admissibility of dying declarations. As a successor to the Indian
Evidence Act, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, introduced on December 25th, 2023,
inherits and reaffirms the provisions outlined in Section 32 of its predecessor. Section 26 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, mirrors Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by
stipulating the relevance of statements made by a person who is deceased or unable to testify.
It continues to recognize the significance of dying declarations, particularly in cases where the
cause of death or the circumstances leading to it are in question. The section emphasizes that
statements made by a person regarding the cause of their death or any circumstances
surrounding the transaction that resulted in their death are considered relevant evidence. It
maintains the principle that such statements are admissible irrespective of whether the person

iv
making the statement was under the expectation of death at the time. In essence, Section 26 of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, upholds the foundation laid by its predecessor,
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ensuring the continued recognition and
admissibility of dying declarations in legal proceedings.

v
 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT

The appellant's counsel referenced the precedent outlined in “Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors.
v. State of Andhra Pradesh”4, arguing that due to the absence of certification from the doctor
regarding the declarant's mental state, the court could not accept the dying declaration as the
sole basis for conviction.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE STATE

The State's counsel cited the decision in “Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat”5,
contending that if the evidence suggests the deceased was fully conscious and capable of
providing a statement, the absence of a doctor's endorsement regarding the declarant's mental
state does not invalidate the dying declaration recorded.

4
Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 696
5
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562

vi
 CASES REFERRED BY THE COUNSELS

Appellant :
Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh6
In the case of Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 7, the dying
declaration was recorded by a judicial magistrate, who noted that based on the answers
provided by the declarant, he was satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make
the declaration. Although the doctor appended a certificate stating that the patient was
conscious during the recording of the statement, the court still deemed it unsafe to accept the
dying declaration as genuine. This decision was influenced by the fact that the doctor's
certificate only confirmed consciousness during recording, without explicitly verifying the
declarant's mental fitness. Additionally, the court identified serious deficiencies in the
declaration and consequently refused to accept it as valid evidence.

State :
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat8
In the subsequent ruling of the court in Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat 9, it
was established that the key criterion is whether the dying declaration can be deemed truthful
and voluntarily made. The court further emphasized that the officer responsible for recording
the declaration must ascertain that the declarant was in a suitable condition to provide the
statement in question.

Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab10

In Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab 11, it was noted that the dying declaration recorded by the
executive magistrate without examination by a doctor, as well as the orally made dying
declaration, should not be doubted. The magistrate, being a disinterested witness and a
responsible officer, without any indication of bias or ulterior motive against the accused,
eliminates any doubt regarding the validity of the declaration recorded by the magistrate.

6
Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 696
7
Id
8
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562
9
Id
10
Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab, 1998 (9) SCC 303
11
Id

vii
Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab12
In the aforementioned case, the court also cited the decision in Harjeet Kaur v. State of
Punjab13, where the magistrate testified that he had verified with the doctor whether the
individual was capable of making a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect. The
fact that the endorsement was made on the application rather than the declaration itself did not
raise any suspicion regarding the dying declaration.

12
Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1999 (6) SCC 545
13
Id

viii
 JUDGEMENT BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH

According to the reasons mentioned previously and after evaluating the validity and correctness
of the cases cited, along with an interpretation of the rule of law and the provisions of the
evidence law, it became evident that the observations made by this court in Paparambaka
Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh14, 1999 (7) SCC 695 were overly broad and
did not accurately reflect the legal principles regarding dying declarations. The contention that
the absence of a specific medical certification regarding the patient's mental state rendered a
dying declaration risky to accept was overly technical. This view failed to acknowledge the
magistrate's assessment of the patient's mental state based on questions posed and answers
received, which could provide sufficient grounds for accepting a dying declaration as valid.
Therefore, the judgment in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 15,
1999 (7) SCC 695 was deemed incorrectly decided. Instead, the legal principles laid down by
this Court in Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat 16, 1999 (9) SCC 562 were
upheld, as they provided a more balanced and pragmatic approach to assessing the validity of
dying declarations.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The court deemed it overly technical to insist on a specific certification from the doctor
regarding the patient's mental state in a dying declaration, especially when the magistrate had
clearly stated, in their evidence, the questions posed to the patient and their satisfaction with
the patient's mental state before recording the dying declaration. Consequently, the court
concluded that the absence of a specific certification regarding the patient's mental state did
not invalidate the dying declaration. In light of this analysis, the court held that the judgment
in Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 17 [(1999) 7 SCC 695] was
incorrectly decided. Instead, the court affirmed the legal principles established in Koli Chunilal
Savji & another vs. State of Gujarat 18 [(1999) 9 SCC 562]. Accordingly, the court dismissed
the appeal, finding no merit in it.

14
Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 696
15
Id
16
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562
17
Paparambaka Rosamma and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 696
18
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562

ix
 RECENT JUDGEMENTS REGARDING DYING DECLARATIONS

HARI NARAYAN V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH19

Criminal Appeal No. 2446 Of 2005,
Decided On: 17/01/2024
This case involved an accusation under Penal Code Section 354 20 and Evidence Act Sections
321 and 3222, where the accused was alleged to have raped the prosecutrix, leading to her
subsequent suicide by self-immolation. The incident allegedly occurred in a forest area while
the prosecutrix was accompanied by her son. However, neither the son nor any other witness
testified to any incident of the accused outraging the prosecutrix's modesty. Additionally, there
was no oral dying declaration made by the deceased implicating the accused. Despite related
witnesses claiming that the deceased had orally declared her modesty was outraged by the
accused while she was hospitalized, the court deemed this evidence unreliable. The prosecution
failed to establish that the deceased was in a fit mental state to make such declarations, and
there was no evidence proving that her suicide was directly linked to the alleged incident
involving the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction.

SOHNI DEVI V. STATE OF H.P.23

Cr. Revision No. 224 Of 2022,
Decided On: 09/01/2024
This case pertained to an application for the discharge of the accused under Criminal Procedure
Code Section 22724, involving charges under Penal Code Section 306 25 and Evidence Act
Section 3226. The application contended that the deceased was frustrated with his wife, leading
to his suicide. A statement made to one witness regarding the deceased's frustration with his

19
Hari Narayan V. State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2024 MP 22
20
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 354, No. 45 of 1860 (India), Now The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 73,
No. 45 of 2023 (India)
21
The Indian Evidence Act, § 3, No. 1of 1872 (India) Now The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 2, No. 47
of 2023
22
The Indian Evidence Act, § 32, No. 1of 1872 (India) Now The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 26, No.
47 of 2023
23
Sohni Devi V. State Of H.P, AIR 2024 HP 74
24
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 227, No. 2 of 1973 (India), Now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, § 250, No. 46 of 2023 (India)
25
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 306, No. 45 of 1860 (India), Now The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 106,
No. 45 of 2023 (India)
26
The Indian Evidence Act, § 32, No. 1of 1872 (India) Now The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 26, No.
47 of 2023

x
wife and his intention to commit suicide was deemed admissible under Section 32 of the
Evidence Act as a circumstance related to the death of a person. The police investigation
revealed that the accused and the deceased frequently quarrelled, causing the deceased distress.
Call detail records indicated consistent communication between the accused and the deceased,
despite their physical separation. This evidence suggested ongoing interaction between them.
The court determined that mere physical separation was insufficient to discharge the accused.
Uncontested allegations established that the accused had harassed the deceased, leading to his
suicide, thereby fulfilling the necessary elements for an offence punishable under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the order discharging the accused was set aside.

SHIV BORASI V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH27

Misc. Criminal Case No. 28887 of 2023,
Decided on: 01/03/2024
The case involved the quashing of an FIR where the allegation was that the accused had
engaged in a physical relationship with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage and
later refused to marry her. Since the prosecutrix had passed away, her FIR and earlier statement
were considered akin to a dying declaration under Section 32 28 of the Evidence Act regarding
the offences alleged therein. Therefore, it was argued that there was not a case of no evidence.
Prima facie evidence existed against the accused, and without delving into the merits of the
case, the court could not analyze the entire evidence at this stage to determine whether a
conviction was possible. Consequently, the court held that no grounds were presented for the
quashing of the FIR.

27
Shiv Borasi V. State Of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 2024 MP 245
28
The Indian Evidence Act, § 32, No. 1 of 1872 (India) Now The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 26, No.
47 of 2023

xi
 CONCLUSION

Based on the thorough examination of legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant laws,
it is clear that the observations made in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh29, were overly broad and did not accurately reflect the legal principles regarding dying
declarations. The contention that the absence of a specific medical certification regarding the
patient's mental state rendered a dying declaration risky to accept was overly technical. This
view failed to acknowledge the magistrate's assessment of the patient's mental state based on
questions posed and answers received, which could provide sufficient grounds for accepting a
dying declaration as valid. Therefore, the judgment in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v.
State of Andhra Pradesh 30 was deemed incorrectly decided. Instead, the legal principles laid
down by this Court in Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat 31, were upheld, as
they provided a more balanced and pragmatic approach to assessing the validity of dying
declarations. Additionally, recent cases such as Hari Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh 32,
Sohni Devi v. State of H.P.33, and Shiv Borasi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 34 further reinforce
the importance of properly evaluating the evidence and circumstances surrounding dying
declarations. These cases underscore the need to consider all relevant factors and not rely solely
on technicalities when assessing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations.
Therefore, it is imperative for the courts to carefully examine the facts and circumstances of
each case to ensure that justice is served.

29
Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 695
30
Id
31
Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (9) SCC 562
32
Hari Narayan V. State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2024 MP 22
33
Sohni Devi V. State Of H.P, AIR 2024 HP 74
34
Shiv Borasi V. State Of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 2024 MP 245

xii
 PERSONAL VIEWS

As an individual reflecting on the cases and judgments provided, I find myself inclined to
prioritize the importance of fairness and equity in the legal system. While legal principles and
precedents guide judicial decisions, it's crucial to ensure that justice is served with sensitivity
to the nuances of each case and the human experiences involved. The complexities surrounding
dying declarations, for instance, highlight the need for a balanced approach that considers both
legal standards and practical realities. I believe that while legal rules provide structure, they
should not overshadow the pursuit of truth and fairness. It's essential for courts to carefully
weigh all evidence, including dying declarations, in context, recognizing the limitations and
biases that may affect their reliability. Moreover, the recent cases underscore the importance
of empathy and understanding in legal proceedings, especially in matters as sensitive as cases
involving suicide or sexual assault allegations. My personal views emphasize the need for a
justice system that not only upholds the law but also demonstrates compassion and respect for
the dignity of every individual involved.

xiii
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Legislations :
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Books :
• 24th Edition, Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, 2023

Online Databases :

• AIR Online
• Manupatra
• SSC Online

Cases Referred :

• Paparambaka Rosamma And Others V. State Of Andhra Pradesh

• Koli Chunilal Savji And Another V. State Of Gujarat
• Ravi Chander V. State Of Punjab
• Harjeet Kaur V. State Of Punjab
• Hari Narayan V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
• Sohni Devi V. State Of H.P.
• Shiv Borasi V. State Of Madhya Pradesh

xiv