When providing testimony, the basic rule is that the witness should be actively involved in the topic of the testimony and should not vouch for the experiences of other people. Under some conditions, statements made by individuals who are unable to testify may be used as evidence, as allowed under Section 32 of the IEA, which offers an exception to the hearsay rule.

"The principle on which a dying declaration is admitted in evidence is indicated in Latin maxim, nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth," the Supreme Court said in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka.

Analysis
Two types of statements are admissible in evidence under Section 32(1). They are as follows:

1. The reason for his demise; or
2. An explanation of any transactional events that led to his demise.
    

The IEA's Section 32(1) establishes the criteria for dying declarations to be accepted. It states that statements made by an individual, whether verbal or written, about the reason for their death or any aspect of the transaction that led to it are significant in situations where the reason for the individual's death is questioned.

Cause of his Death: According to this clause, a person's statement regarding the reason for his death or death would be significant in a case where the reason for the death is the main point of contention. A gets attacked and perishes. He claims that "B assaulted him with a spear" before passing away. Regarding the reason for his demise, A's statement is admissible. It doesn't matter how long passed between the declaration and the passing.

The declaration is admissible if it pertains to the reason behind the deponent's passing. However, the statement is not acceptable as a dying declaration if there is no evidence that the injuries the deceased person stated in his statement were the reason for his death. In the event that the deceased claimed that X had wounded him but that pneumonia, for example, killed him instead of the injuries, the deceased's claim that X caused the injuries cannot be accepted under this provision.

A girl was ravished in Narain Singh v. State of Bihar. She burned herself alive shortly after the incident as a suicide. Her admission of the rape was rejected because there was insufficient evidence to link the girl's rape to her demise.

In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of HP, a girl killed herself after receiving repeated threats and taunts. Her admission was allowed only for aiding and abetting suicide, not for killing.

In light of the aforementioned legal position, we must discuss whether there has been assistance in suicide. Given that it is explicitly stated that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not upholdable based solely on an allegation of harassment without any affirmative action taken by the accused in close vicinity to the incident that caused the victim to commit suicide.

Statement as to any circumstances of transaction which resulted in his death: The phrase "as to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death" found in Section 32 makes it obvious that the event resulting in death must have a proximate relation to actual occurrence, the Supreme Court noted in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab. To put it another way, the deceased's declaration regarding the reason for his death or the details of the transaction that caused it needs to be properly and unambiguously connected to the real transaction.

Judiciary has established a series of rulings which have both expanded and limited the scope of dying declarations. Section 32, however, is silent on the when and how the statements should be made, as well as the evidentiary value of a dying declaration in the absence of any other evidence or the evidentiary value of an exculpatory dying declaration when there is other evidence and the mental and physical fitness of the maker of the statement.

Evidentiary Value
The Supreme Court has previously expressed concern about convicting the accused based only on the dying declaration's testimony. The Supreme Court ruled in Ram Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh that a deathbed declaration alone could not be used as a ground for conviction. The deathbed statement was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Rajasthan because the attending physician expressed doubts about the deceased's capacity to make such a declaration.

It is evident that the Supreme Court did not find the dying declaration principle to be entirely satisfactory. However, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that deathbed utterances can serve as the only foundation for conviction in Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay.

1. That a dying declaration cannot serve as the only foundation for conviction unless it is verified; this cannot be established as an unchangeable legal rule.
2. Each case needs to be evaluated based on its unique facts while taking the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration into consideration.
3. The idea that a dying pronouncement is less reliable than other types of evidence cannot be established as a general rule.
4. A dying declaration is admissible as any other piece of evidence and must be evaluated in the context of the case as well as in accordance with the rules governing the weighting of the evidence.
5. A deathbed declaration that the magistrate documents in question-and-answer format is far more reliable.
6. The circumstances such as the opportunity for the dying man to be observed, i.e., sufficient light at the crime scene, the capacity to recall the details, the consistency of the statements, and the fact that the statement was made at an earlier opportunity and was not the product of tutoring by interested parties must be taken into consideration by the court in order to test the reliability of the dying declaration.

Conclusion
Because it is unlikely that a man in risk of losing himself would tell lies and implicate an innocent party, the Legislature wisely decided to put dying declarations on par with testimony given under oath by establishing Section 32.

However, relying only on a dying declaration to convict an accused person is not secure because dying declarations have the following flaws:

1. The evidence cannot be cross-examined in court because it is hearsay and was not given under oath.
2. Because it was made at the extremity, the maker might be disoriented and physically unfit.
3. The declarant is free to seize the final chance to accuse every adversary.

Therefore, the court must consider the following issues when responding to the dying declaration in light of the principles established in Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat & Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay. There are a few key pieces of evidence that the court must consider:

1. That after taking all necessary safety measures, it was documented by a qualified magistrate.
2. That it was recorded using the exact same terms that were said.
3. The fact that it was made soon after the attack, before it might have been influenced by information gleaned from other people.
4. The fact that the deceased had plenty of time to be observed.
5. That there was enough lighting where the incident took place.

Written By: Akanksha