ORAL DYING DECLARATION MADE TO CLOSE RELATIVES REQUIRES CAUTIOUS ASSESSMENT BEFORE BEING USED TO CONVICT ACCUSED: SUPREME COURT
Category: Legal News
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
INTRODUCTION
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India dealt with a substantial part of the criminal law concerning the acceptability and credibility of the oral dying declaration. The Court, in its judgment also noted that special care has to be taken before oral dying declarations particularly those made to nearer relations before the accused can be convicted on the basis of such evidence. The above decision is a testimony that this Court has not relinquished its constitutional duty of ascertaining justice based on sound material facts to safeguard the rights of the accused persons.
BACKGROUND
The next type of forensic evidence is dying declaration, a statement of the person who thinks he is about to die. Under Section32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is stated that such declarations can be tendered in evidence. The objective of such provision is that it will be almost impossible for the dying person to tell a lie, he has to tell the truth. However, the legal admissibility of dying declarations particularly oral declarations has always come under a lot of criticism because such statements can be easily misquoted, overstated or manipulated. This has come to light bearing in mind the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of this Kingdom, to warrant extra cautiousness in the analysis of the oral dying declaration especially to those made to the close relatives of the victims both by virtue of self-Ego interest and bias.
KEY ASPECTS
1.Reliability of Oral Dying Declarations: The Supreme Court also re-emphasized that there should be great care in evaluating what a dying person said. In contrast to written declarations, these statements include oral statements able to take different forms of distorted, from misunderstanding up to the actual manipulative distortion. This why the Court pointed out that such declarations should not be taken without much scrutiny and cross check.
2. Caution in Accepting Declarations Made to Relatives: The Court noted that issue declarations to their close relatives need to be treated as having a raised level of suspicion. To family members, because of their bias, one might provide a distorted report of things to say the person who is dying. A danger that presents itself is that some relations might have a personal grudge or something to gain also needs scrutiny to minimize cases of a wrongful conviction.
3. Corroborative Evidence: To reduce the risks of oral dying declarations the Supreme Court always considered the corroboration of the facts of the statement. The Court recommended that oral dying declarations should be supported by other independent and reliable evidence before the former can be relied upon to sustain conviction. This approach makes the declaration validated by the other substantiation making the declaration more credible.
4. Judicial Duty: The judgment also pointed out the obligation of the judiciary to scrutinize the circumstances in which the oral dying declaration was made. The circumstances that have to be taking into account include, inter alia, whether the declarant had any mental or physical ability at the relevant time, what was said in (precise) detail and whether there was undue influence. .
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the supreme court is very useful to recall the necessity of the proved evidence in criminal cases. Stressing the significance of careful evaluation of oral dying declarations especially made to close kin of the decedent, the Court hopes to rid itself of injustice cases. This ruling maintains the legal bodies set to protect the accused, but that at the same time do not bar the real declarations from helping to advance justice. Altogether, it would be pertinent, necessary and proper to explain that Supreme Court’s guideline regarding detailed watchfulness and necessary confirmation of the oral dying declaration are overwhelming steps toward restoration of parity. They also insist on the accuracy of analysis of such evidence by the judiciary hence maintaining a high standard of the criminal justice system.
