Difference of opinion between doctor recording dying declaration and the doctor holding post-mortem examination, in regard to deceased's ability to talk after receiving fatal injury on neck. Dying declaration not relied on. Woodcock, 1789 I Leach 500. Such statements are relevant whether the, person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, a d whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. Such a statement can be proved when it is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. Exclusion of his statement would tend to defeat the ends of justice. In the result, the Supreme Court dismiss this appeal.
As a matter of fact, perfect wording and neatly structured dying declaration bring about an adverse impression and create a suspicion in the mind of the Court since dying declarations need not be drawn with mathematical precision. According to doctor the deceased was not in full possession of senses and was surrounded by six persons. As a result, it is an exception to the rule, which prohibits the use of a statement made by someone other than the person who repeats it while testifying during a trial, because of its inherent untrustworthiness. The Supreme Court further held that, so far as the extra judicial confession is concerned it is said that the same was made by the accused at panchayat on two occasions. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. It was contemplated that the result in such cases as Donnelly v.
The case went to the Supreme Court. As the possibility of getting the maker of the statements in flesh and blood has been closed once and for all the endeavour should be how to include the statement of a dead person within the sweep of the sub-section and not how to exclude it therefrom. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. Dinanth Singh reached the spot while he was on patrolling duty. In some instances it is self-evident marriage and in others impossible and traditionally not required date of birth. Hence, this appeal by special leave is preferred. The Senate amendments make four changes in the rule.
Sinha Ray, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Vol. The decision leaves open the questions 1 whether direct and redirect are equivalent to cross-examination for purposes of confrontation, 2 whether testimony given in a different proceeding is acceptable, and 3 whether the accused must himself have been a party to the earlier proceeding or whether a similarly situated person will serve the purpose. It does not matter that the person has put a thumb impression or signed it if this is duly witnessed. A statement tending to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborated. The same resulted in the deceased Nalu Sunil Potdukhe, suffering from burn injuries. The House bill eliminated a similar, but broader, provision because of the conviction that such a provision injected too much uncertainty into the law of evidence regarding hearsay and impaired the ability of a litigant to prepare adequately for trial.
This statement was objected by the appellant because it was not a statement after the transaction or the injury. Oral evidence must be direct. The statement must have been proved in an ordinary way by a person who heard it made. If the conditions otherwise constituting unavailability result from the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of the statement, the requirement is not satisfied. The primary effort of the court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true.
The amendment does not address the use of the corroborating circumstances for declarations against penal interest offered in civil cases. Although there is considerable support for the admissibility of such statements all three of the State rules referred to supra, would admit such statements , we accept the deletion by the House. United States, , 61, 19 S. Unlike the rule, the latter three provide either that former testimony is not admissible if the right of confrontation is denied or that it is not admissible if the accused was not a party to the prior hearing. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment The language of Rule 804 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. If something in a dying declaration is false, the whole declaration must not necessarily be disregarded.
No absolute rule can be laid down regarding dying declaration not forming sole basis of conviction unless corroborated. The credit of such a declarant may be impeached in the same way as that of witness actually examined in a court. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: 1 Former Testimony. Before Police Better and more reliable methods of recording a dying declaration of an injured person should be taken recourse to and the one recorded by the Police Officer may be relied upon if there was no time or facility available to the prosecution for adopting a better method. It is for the court to see that dying declaration inspires full confidence as the maker of the dying declaration is not available for cross examination 2.
Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. But even in conditions where it was not possible to take fitness from the doctor, dying declarations have retained their full sanctity if there are other witnesses to testify that victim was in such a condition of the mind which did not prevent him from making statement. Such statement made by the deceased is commonly termed as dying declaration. Deceased died after 68 days. A more direct and acceptable approach is simply to recognize direct and redirect examination of one's own witness as the equivalent of cross-examining an opponent's witness. Retinoids comprise retinol, retinaldehyde, retinoic acid preformed vitamin A… Pinguecula is an extremely common degenerative condition of the conjunctiva.
To Strengthen the Value of a Dying Declaration By enacting section 32 the Legislature in its wisdom has placed a dying declaration on par with evidence on oath for the reason that at the time when a man is in danger of losing himself it is not likely that he would speak a falsehood and involve an innocent person. This condition is termed pinguecula, because of its resemblance to fat, which means pinguis. A witness who violates the sanctity of oath by narrating facts untrue to his knowledge exposes himself to be punished fix perjury. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. The person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. See Section 104 English Law: There are two vital points of distinction between the English and the Indian law on the point of admissibility of dying declarations: a Firstly, in England, a dying declaration is relevant only in criminal cases where the cause of death is in question.
The court also found glaring inconsistencies as far as naming the culprit was concerned. Anything which has a nexus with his death, proximate or distant, direct or indirect, can also fall within the purview of the sub-section. Courts of law usually have to find that certain facts exist before pronouncing on the rights, duties, and liabilities of the parties and such evidence as they will receive in furtherance of this task is described as 'judicial evidence'. She had no reason to record any false statement as she has not been shown to be inimical to the Appellant, or friendly with the deceased. Thus in cases under Rule 803 demeanor lacks the significance which it possesses with respect to testimony. However, where the condition of the deceased had become grave and a statement made by him in the presence of the doctor was taken down by the police but it could not be completed as he fell into coma from he did not recover and died subsequently, the dying declaration was held to be inadmissible because upon the face of it was incomplete and no one can tell what the deceased was about to add. The question was whether her statement was relevant? Justice Holmes in Donnelly v.