Dying declaration is a statement made by a person as to the cause of their death or as to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death, admissible as evidence when that person is dead. Under Indian law, dying declarations are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides:
Section 32: Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:
(1) When the statement 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, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.
Unlike English law, Indian law does not require that the declaration be made under the expectation of death. The statement is admissible regardless of whether the declarant had any apprehension of death at the time of making it.
New law equivalent: Under the BSA, 2023, Section 26(a) corresponds to Section 32(1) IEA. The language is virtually identical, and all judicial interpretations under the old law remain fully applicable. Section 26(a) BSA expressly recognises oral, written, and non-verbal communications (including gestures and signs) as valid forms of dying declaration.
How courts have interpreted this term
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 6 SCC 710]
The Supreme Court laid down that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration, provided it inspires full confidence of the court. The Court held that there is no absolute rule that a dying declaration must be corroborated before being relied upon. Each case must be determined on its own facts.
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22]
The Supreme Court laid down several principles governing dying declarations: (1) there is no requirement that the dying declaration must be made to a Magistrate; (2) a dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence; (3) each dying declaration must be considered on its own merits; (4) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as other evidence.
P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 443]
The Supreme Court held that before relying on a dying declaration, the court must be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit mental and physical state to make the statement, the statement was not the result of tutoring or prompting, and the statement was recorded accurately. A medical certificate regarding the fitness of the declarant is desirable but not indispensable.
Why this matters
Dying declarations occupy a unique position in Indian evidence law. They constitute a major exception to the hearsay rule — ordinarily, statements made outside the court are inadmissible as substantive evidence. The exception rests on the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire (a person on the verge of death is presumed not to lie), reflecting the belief that the solemnity of approaching death ensures truthfulness.
For practitioners, dying declarations are often decisive in murder and dowry death cases, where the victim's last statement may be the only direct evidence identifying the assailant. The form of the dying declaration matters — it may be oral (recorded by a police officer or bystander), written (including a nod or gesture in response to questions), or recorded as a Magistrate's statement. A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate carries the highest evidential weight, though it is not legally mandatory.
A common area of litigation is the challenge to the fitness of the declarant. Defence counsel frequently argue that the victim was not in a condition to make a coherent statement — due to pain, sedation, or semiconsciousness. To counter this, a medical certificate confirming the declarant's fitness to make a statement is strongly recommended, though the Supreme Court has held it is not an absolute prerequisite.
Related terms
Related evidentiary concepts:
Related offences:
Related procedures:
Frequently asked questions
Can a dying declaration be the sole basis for conviction?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) held that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration, provided the court is satisfied that the statement is truthful, voluntary, and the declarant was in a fit state of mind to make it.
Does the declarant have to know they are dying?
No. Unlike English law, Indian law does not require that the dying declaration be made under expectation of death. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (Section 26(a) BSA) makes the statement admissible regardless of whether the declarant had any apprehension of death at the time.
Can an oral dying declaration be relied upon?
Yes. A dying declaration may be oral, written, or even in the form of gestures or signs. An oral dying declaration is admissible and can be proved by the testimony of the person who heard it. However, a written dying declaration, especially one recorded by a Magistrate, carries greater evidential weight.
What if there are multiple dying declarations that contradict each other?
The Supreme Court has held that where multiple dying declarations exist and are contradictory, the court must scrutinise each with care. The court may rely on one and reject the other, provided there is a credible basis for the distinction. Contradictions do not automatically render all declarations unreliable.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.