Evidence Law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)
Multiple Dying Declarations under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Consistency, Material Inconsistency, Which Declaration Prevails and Case Laws
It is common for a dying person to speak more than once before death. The first account may be given to a relative who reaches the scene, the second to the police officer who arrives, the third to a doctor, and the fourth to a Magistrate summoned to the hospital. Where the accounts agree, the case is greatly strengthened. Where they differ, the court must decide which, if any, it can act upon, and the answer turns on whether the difference is material and whether it can be explained.
1. Why Multiple Declarations Arise
Sequence | Who records it | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
First — at or near the scene | A relative, a neighbour, or whoever reached the declarant first | Oral, spontaneous, unrecorded, and reported afterwards from memory. Frequently the briefest |
Second — on arrival of the police | The investigating officer or the first responder | May be recorded in writing, or may form the first information report where the declarant is the informant |
Third — at the hospital | The attending doctor, on admission | Often a short note in the case papers recording how the injury was caused |
Fourth — after a Magistrate is summoned | A Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 | The most formal, with a certificate of fitness and a memorandum. May be recorded by audio-video electronic means |
Each is a dying declaration in law. None is excluded because another exists, and none is automatically preferred because of its position in the sequence. The court receives all of them and then decides what to do with them.
⚠ Time is the critical variable Every interval between one declaration and the next is an interval in which the declarant's condition may have changed and in which interested persons may have reached him. The gap between the first and the last is therefore the first thing a court examines when the accounts differ. A change in the version that coincides with the arrival of the deceased's relatives calls for explanation; a change that coincides with a return to full consciousness may explain itself. |
2. Where the Declarations Are Consistent
Consistent declarations reinforce one another. Each supplies independent confirmation that the account was the declarant's own and was not the product of a single recorder's error or invention.
Feature | Effect |
|---|---|
Consistency across different recorders | Very strong. A relative, a doctor and a Magistrate independently recording the same account makes tutoring and error alike improbable |
Consistency across time | Removes the concern that the declarant's version changed once relatives reached him |
Consistency with the medical evidence | The strongest single support. A declaration that matches the post-mortem as to the weapon, the number of injuries and their situation is very difficult to displace |
Minor differences in detail | Immaterial. A dying person cannot be expected to give a uniform and precise account on each occasion, and identical wording across four accounts is itself suspicious |
Effect on corroboration | Where the declarations are consistent and the declarant was fit, a conviction may rest on them without further corroboration |
📖 Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 Held: There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated. A dying declaration stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and must be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances. Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary and that the maker was in a fit state of mind, it can found a conviction upon it without corroboration. Application: Where multiple declarations are consistent, the satisfaction the section requires is that much easier to reach, and no further corroboration is called for. |
3. Where the Declarations Are Inconsistent
Inconsistency does not render all the declarations worthless, and it does not automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal. The court must examine each of them and determine whether any can safely be acted upon.
📖 Nallam Veera Stayanandam v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 769 Held: Where there are multiple dying declarations and they are at variance with one another, the court must scrutinise the evidence and determine which of them is reliable, having regard to the circumstances in which each was recorded. It is not the law that in every case of multiple declarations the earlier must be preferred, nor that inconsistency renders all of them worthless. The court must examine the whole of the material and decide whether any one of them can safely be acted upon. Ratio: Inconsistency calls for scrutiny, not automatic rejection, and no rule of precedence attaches to the order in which the declarations were made. |
📖 Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 468 Held: Where there is inconsistency between dying declarations, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistency — whether it is material or otherwise. If the inconsistencies go to a material particular and the court is unable to hold any of the declarations to be reliable, it would not be safe to convict on the basis of such declarations. The court must consider the circumstances in which each was recorded, including the condition of the declarant and the persons present. Ratio: The test is whether the inconsistency is material. Where it is, and cannot be resolved, no conviction can rest on any of the declarations. |
📖 Kamla v. State of Punjab, (1993) 1 SCC 172 Held: Where there are two dying declarations at variance, the court must consider the circumstances in which each was made. A declaration recorded by a Magistrate, after the Magistrate has satisfied himself as to the fitness of the declarant and has recorded the statement in the declarant's own words, ordinarily commands greater confidence than an earlier oral version reported by an interested relative. The court is not, however, bound to prefer the later declaration in every case; the assessment turns on the reliability of each. Ratio: The identity and independence of the recorder is a principal consideration where declarations conflict. |
4. Material and Peripheral Inconsistency
Type of inconsistency | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
Identity of the assailant | The first declaration names A; the second names B; the third names both | Material. If unresolved, ordinarily fatal to the prosecution |
Number of assailants | One person in the first account, three in the last | Material, particularly where the later version expands to include relatives of the accused |
Nature of the incident | Accidental burning in the first; pouring of kerosene in the second | Material. The two accounts cannot stand together |
Motive attributed | No motive mentioned initially; a dowry demand added later | Potentially material, especially where the addition follows the arrival of relatives |
Time of the occurrence | A difference of an hour or so between accounts | Peripheral. A dying person is not expected to be precise about the clock |
Sequence of events | Minor variation in the order in which things happened | Peripheral |
Words spoken by the assailant | Slight variation in the wording of a threat | Peripheral |
Level of detail | The first account is a single sentence; the last runs to a page | Peripheral. Brevity is no ground for rejection, and elaboration is natural as the declarant recovers composure |
⚠ The direction of the change matters Courts pay close attention not merely to whether an account changed but to how. A version that narrows as time passes — from three assailants to one — is easier to accept than one that expands, because expansion is the pattern that tutoring produces. Where the later account adds the names of the accused's relatives, or supplies a motive that was absent at first, the court will ask who reached the declarant in the interval. |
5. What the Court Examines in Each Declaration
Matter | What is looked for |
|---|---|
Who recorded it | A Magistrate, a doctor, a police officer, or an interested relative. Independence of the recorder bears directly on reliability |
Fitness of the declarant at that moment | Whether a doctor certified fitness, or the recorder recorded his own satisfaction. Condition may differ materially between one declaration and the next |
Who was present | Whether relatives of the deceased were present throughout, and whether the words are the declarant's own |
Whether the declarant's own words were recorded | Verbatim recording, ideally in question-and-answer form, carries far more weight than a summary |
Whether it was read over | Whether the declaration was read over to the declarant and acknowledged |
The interval | How long elapsed since the previous declaration, and what happened in that interval |
Consistency with the medical evidence | Whether the account fits the post-mortem findings as to the weapon, the injuries and their situation |
Completeness | Whether the declarant finished what he was saying, or died mid-account |
6. Which Declaration Prevails
There is no rule of precedence. Neither the first nor the last is preferred as a matter of law, and the court decides on the material before it.
Proposition | Position |
|---|---|
Is the first declaration preferred? | No rule. It has the advantage of being closest to the event and least exposed to tutoring, but it is frequently the least reliably recorded |
Is the last declaration preferred? | No rule. It is often the most formally recorded, but it is also the most exposed to intervening influence |
Is the one recorded by a Magistrate preferred? | Not as a rule of law, but ordinarily it commands greater confidence, because the recorder is independent and the procedure is prescribed |
May the court accept one and reject the others? | Yes, provided it gives reasons and the one accepted is itself reliable and consistent with the other evidence |
May the court accept part of a declaration? | With caution. A declaration is ordinarily read as a whole, and picking a favourable sentence out of an otherwise doubtful account is not permissible |
What if the court cannot say which is true? | No conviction can rest on any of them. The benefit goes to the accused |
📖 Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 Held: The Court collected the principles governing dying declarations. There is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. The court must scrutinise the declaration to ensure that it is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination, and must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. A declaration which is not consistent with the medical evidence, or which is incomplete, or where the deceased was not in a fit state of mind, cannot be relied upon. Merely because a declaration is brief, it does not follow that it is unreliable. Application: Each of the multiple declarations is tested against these principles separately before the question of which prevails arises at all. |
7. The Approach in Sequence
Step | Question | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
1 | Is each statement a dying declaration — made by a person now dead, as to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in it? | A statement failing this test drops out. It may still be relevant under Section 4 or Section 6 |
2 | Was the declarant in a fit state of mind when each was made? | Any declaration made when he was unfit is discarded, however consistent it is with the others |
3 | Are the surviving declarations consistent? | If so, they corroborate one another and may be acted upon without further corroboration |
4 | If not, is the inconsistency material or peripheral? | Peripheral differences are ignored |
5 | Can the material inconsistency be explained — by a change in condition, by the presence of interested persons, or by the manner of recording? | An unexplained material contradiction cannot be resolved in the prosecution's favour |
6 | Is any one declaration reliable in itself and consistent with the medical and other evidence? | It may be acted upon, with reasons |
7 | If none can be held reliable, what follows? | Acquittal. The court cannot pick between irreconcilable versions |
8. Practical Points
- All the declarations must be placed before the court. Withholding one and relying on another is improper, and where the defence establishes that an earlier inconsistent account was suppressed, the prosecution case is seriously damaged.
- The first information report may itself be a dying declaration where the deceased was the informant, and it must be considered alongside the rest.
- The medical case papers frequently contain a declaration in the form of a note on how the injury was caused, and it must be brought on record and put to the doctor.
- Identical wording across several accounts is itself a warning sign. Genuine repeated accounts differ in detail; identical ones suggest a single source copied forward.
- A declaration recorded by audio-video electronic means under the proviso to Section 183(1) of the BNSS is an electronic record, and must be proved under Sections 57, 61 and 63 of the Adhiniyam.
- Where one declaration exculpates the accused, it must be given full effect. The prosecution cannot rely on a later inculpatory version without accounting for the earlier one.
9. Related Topics and Provisions
Topic or provision | Connection |
|---|---|
Dying Declaration — Section 26(a) | The essentials, forms and evidentiary value of a single declaration |
Dying Declaration Recorded by a Police Officer | The scrutiny applied where the recorder is an investigating official |
Dying Declaration vs Dying Deposition | The distinction between a declaration and evidence recorded on oath under Section 27 |
Statements by Persons Dead or Unavailable — Section 26 | The conditions of unavailability and the remaining clauses |
Hearsay Evidence — Rule and Exceptions | The rule to which Section 26(a) is an exception |
Section 39, BSA | Medical opinion as to fitness and as to the cause of death |
Sections 57, 61 and 63 and the Schedule, BSA | Proof of a declaration recorded by audio-video electronic means |
Section 183, BNSS, 2023 | Recording of statements by a Magistrate |