November 1, 2025

Introduction

“Truth sits upon the lips of dying men”

Can a person’s final words hold the same weight as testimony under oath? A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who thinks that he is going to die. It can be written or oral. A dying declaration has to be a statement given not long before the death of the person. The legal maxim ‘nemo mariturus presumuntur mentri’ which means that no person will lie when they are facing death.

Curious about what counts as a dying declaration in Indian law?

This article breaks down its meaning, forms, who can record it, its evidentiary weight, and the landmark cases that define it.

Section 26 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 26 states the situations where the statements made by a person who is missing, dead, or is incapable of giving evidence or whose presence cannot be obtained are considered admissible and relevant in court.

Statements which are included are:

Statements made by a person about how or why they died can be used as evidence if their death is being questioned, even if they didn’t expect to die.
Business records, receipts, or documents written or signed while doing regular work are also accepted.
A person’s statement that goes against their own financial or personal interest, or that could get them into legal trouble, can be relevant too.
Similarly, statements made about family relationships, like by blood, marriage, or adoption, by someone who had special knowledge of the family, are also relevant.
Any mention of family ties in wills, deeds, family records, or even on tombstones or portraits, made before the dispute arose, can be used as evidence.
Statements written in documents like wills or deeds that relate to property matters are also accepted.
Lastly, if a statement shows the shared feelings or impressions of several people about something connected to the case, it can be taken into account too.

Types of dying declaration in India

The dying declaration can be made in any of the following ways:

Written form
Signs and gestures
Verbal form

If a person is so badly hurt or sick that they can’t talk or write, it’s still valid if they nod “yes” or “no” to questions that count as a dying declaration. Ideally, the statement should be written down in the language the person actually understands. A full story (narrative) of what happened can also serve as the dying declaration.

Essential requirements of a dying declaration

A dying declaration is considered relevant only if the below mentioned conditions are present:

The person who is making a dying declaration must be in a fit state of mind.
The statement which is made must be credible, reliable and truthful.
The statement must be made only when the person thinks that their death is imminent.
A statement made by someone on their deathbed must be about how they died or what led to their death.

Only the words actually spoken by that dying person should be recorded.

In the case of Mallella Shyamsunder vs State Of A.P (2014) the Supreme Court added:

The person should give the statement on their own, without being guided or pressured by anyone.
The court can also see if the person said it because of anger or to take revenge.

Who can record a dying declaration?

Any person can record a dying declaration if they are a Magistrate, doctor, police officer, a close relative or a friend. However, a dying declaration recorded by a doctor or a Magistrate is considered more reliable.

If a dying declaration is recorded by a police or close relative requires more scrutiny. If a dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate then it is advised to take signatures of the witness present when the dying declaration is recorded.

Evidentiary Value of a dying declaration

A dying declaration is very important in court and can even be enough on its own to convict someone if it is found to be true and trustworthy. The court must be completely confident that the statement is accurate.

The judge has to make sure the person’s words were not influenced, guided, or imagined. It should also be clear that the person was mentally stable and able to see and recognize who attacked them. If the court believes the statement is honest and made willingly, it can rely on it alone to give a judgment. This makes a dying declaration a strong piece of evidence.

Dying declaration with incomplete statements

A dying declaration that is incomplete cannot usually be accepted as evidence. However, if a person in a serious condition makes a statement in the presence of a doctor, and the police later record it but cannot finish it because the person falls into a coma and dies, the situation is different.

In Cyril Waugh vs. The King (1950), the court, rejected a dying declaration because it seemed unfinished and unclear about what the deceased meant to say further. If that statement, although incomplete, clearly conveys all the important facts and shows what the deceased wanted to say about the incident, it will not be rejected just because it was left unfinished. In other words, if the part that was recorded gives complete and meaningful information about the case, it can still be treated as a valid dying declaration.

The courts have also made it clear that a dying declaration does not have to cover every detail of the incident. It cannot be rejected just because it leaves out some parts of the story, as long as it gives a clear idea of what happened and who was responsible.

Dying declaration if declarant survives

If the person who gave the dying declaration stays alive, their statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration. Instead, that person can appear in court as a witness, and their earlier statement can be used to either back up or challenge what they say during the trial.

Landmark judgements on dying declaration in India

Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay (1958)

In this case, conviction was based solely on a Magistrate-recorded dying declaration. The Supreme Court ruled evidence isn’t legally required if the statement is reliable. A truthful declaration alone can form the basis for conviction. It became a cornerstone precedent affirming the evidentiary power of dying declarations.

Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra (2002)

A Constitution Bench clarified the law after Rosamma in this case. It held that a doctor’s certificate isn’t mandatory if other evidence shows the victim was fit. Substance and reliability outweigh procedural formality. This decision remains the authoritative rule on recording dying declarations.

Atbir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010)

A murder conviction rested solely on a detailed dying declaration. The Supreme Court in this case upheld it, laying down comprehensive guidelines on reliability and voluntariness. It reiterated that no evidence is required if the statement inspires confidence. This case became a modern benchmark for evaluating dying declarations.

Munnu Raja vs. State of M.P. (1976)

In this case a victim’s FIR served as his dying declaration. The Supreme Court ruled an FIR can act as a valid dying declaration if related to the cause of death. It reaffirmed that evidence isn’t mandatory. This expanded admissibility to police-recorded FIR statements of dying persons.

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984)

A suicide note was treated as a dying declaration in this case. The court held that such notes require evidence due to possible doubts about authenticity. It warned against convictions solely based on unverified suicide notes. This case introduced caution in treating written self-declarations as conclusive evidence.

Smt. Paniben vs. State of Gujarat (1992)

In this case, multiple inconsistent dying declarations were made by a burn victim. The Supreme Court compiled principles on evaluating dying declarations. It held that if one statement is found truthful and voluntary, conviction can rest on it. Paniben became the key guideline case for courts handling multiple declarations.

Bhajju alias Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. (2012)

The victim’s clear declaration before a Magistrate convicted her husband. The court reaffirmed in this case that a truthful dying declaration alone suffices for conviction. It cited the moral presumption that the dying do not lie. This ruling reinforced long-standing faith in credible last statements.

Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

Conviction was based on a doubtful dying declaration in this case. The Supreme Court held that if a declaration appears unreliable or incomplete, evidence is needed. Courts must be fully satisfied about its truth before convicting. It reinforced that the benefit of doubt applies when credibility is in question.

Kamla vs. State of Punjab (1993)

Contradictory dying declarations created uncertainty about the accused’s role. The court ruled that inconsistent declarations need proof before conviction. Consistency between multiple declarations is essential for reliability. This case reinforced giving the benefit of doubt where discrepancies exist.

Irfan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Two dying declarations accused Irfan of murder, but inconsistencies raised doubts. The Supreme Court in this case found them suspicious and acquitted him. It listed key factors courts must assess timing, fitness, voluntariness, and coherence. This case modernized the evaluation framework, stressing holistic scrutiny of dying declarations.

Legal framework of dying declarations in other countries

Dying deceleration and its evidentiary value are different in different countries.

Country	Law / Rule	When It’s Allowed	Key Conditions	Special Notes
United Kingdom	Common law & Criminal Evidence Act	Only in homicide cases	Person must believe death is near with no hope of recovery; statement must relate to cause of death	Very strict about confirming belief in death
United States	Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 804(b)(2))	In both homicide and civil cases	Person must think death is imminent; statement must explain the cause of death	Courts ensure statements are genuine and not influenced
Canada	Canadian Evidence Act	Only in homicide cases	Person must have no hope of recovery; statement must concern cause of death	Needs other supporting evidence for acceptance
Australia	Uniform Evidence Acts	Mainly in criminal (death-related) cases	Expectation of near death; statement must relate to cause of death	Courts look for additional proof to confirm truth
France	Code of Criminal Procedure	Rarely accepted	Only if supported by other strong evidence	Prefers forensic and witness evidence over dying statements
Germany	German Code of Criminal Procedure	Limited admissibility	Carefully reviewed; compared with other direct evidence	Used cautiously and under strict court review
South Africa	Common law	In criminal (death) cases	Expectation of death; statement must relate to cause or circumstances	Must be made voluntarily and truthfully
New Zealand	Evidence Act 2006	In death-related cases	Person must believe death is close; statement must concern death circumstances	Courts ensure it’s free from force or pressure

Conclusion

A dying declaration is an important piece of evidence in criminal cases where a person’s death is unnatural. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, continues to recognize its value but with a simpler and updated legal system. Courts still accept and rely on such statements, but it is important to make sure they are given freely, recorded correctly, and judged carefully. The statement should be voluntary and truthful, as a person near death is expected to speak honestly. It holds the same importance as other evidence and should be examined based on the situation and other supporting facts.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

When is a dying declaration not admissible?

A dying declaration cannot be accepted as evidence if the person was not in danger of dying when they made it, if it doesn’t talk about the cause of their death, or if they weren’t mentally fit at that time. It is also not valid if the statement is unclear or incomplete, recorded by someone not authorized, contains contradictions, or if the person who made it survives.

What is the difference between dying declaration and dying deposition?

The main difference is that a dying declaration is an informal statement made by someone who believes they are about to die, and it can be recorded by anyone, like a police officer or doctor, without an oath or cross-examination. A dying deposition, on the other hand, is a formal statement taken under oath by a Magistrate, where cross-examination is allowed, making it more reliable.

Is oath taking required during a dying declaration?

It’s not compulsory for a dying declaration to be made under oath or in front of a Magistrate, but doing so is usually preferred to make sure it’s genuine and trustworthy.

Dying Declaration: Types, Essentials and Landmark Judgements