Difference Between Dying Declaration And Dying Deposition

Dying declarations and dying depositions are both legal concepts concerning statements made close to death, yet they differ significantly. A dying declaration, admissible in India under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, is a statement by a person regarding the cause of their death. Conversely, a dying deposition is a formal, sworn testimony taken under oath in a judicial proceeding, where the deponent subsequently dies before trial. The legal concepts of dying declaration and dying deposition play a crucial role in determining the circumstances of a person’s death and providing admissible evidence in court. These terms are often misunderstood due to their similarities, but they have significant distinctions in terms of recording procedures, legal admissibility, and reliability.

This blog explores the difference between dying declaration and dying deposition, shedding light on their definitions, admissibility criteria, and relevance in both civil and criminal cases.

What is A Dying Declaration?

A dying declaration is simply a statement that is made by a person who is about to die. It generally regards the cause or circumstances leading to death. It is based on the principle that a person who is about to die will not lie about the cause of death and has no motive to misrepresent the truth.

Conditions For Admissibility Of A Dying Declaration

Under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, a dying declaration is considered a relevant fact if the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The deceased's statement can be oral or written, and it can also be conveyed through signs or gestures.
2. The statements must be about the cause or circumstances of death. Anything other than that is irrelevant and inadmissible.
3. There should be an imminent sense of death, which is considered equal to the obligation of an oath.
4. The statement should relate only to the transactions that led to a deponent's death. Remote or indirect transactions are not considered relevant.

Admissibility & Recording

A dying declaration is admissible in court as an exception to the normal rule that hearsay should not be included in evidence. In the case of Kushal Rao vs. the State of Bombay (1958), it was held that a dying declaration could not be the sole basis for conviction. It has to be established based on its facts by taking into consideration the circumstances leading to death. At the same time, it is not weak evidence compared to others.

The magistrate should record a dying declaration. But if it is recorded by anyone else, then it does not affect the reliability of the dying declaration. So, it can be recorded by public servants or doctors.

Example Of A Dying Declaration

A was raped and received injuries during it; she later died of injuries. While being treated by the doctors, she tells them that X has raped me. The doctor can record this statement and produce it in court as a dying declaration.

A very common question is what happens if the declarant, after recording the dying declaration, actually survives and does not die. The statement recorded in cases where the person is about to die is considered a dying declaration only if the declarant dies. If he doesn't die, it can still be used against the accused in court. However, its admissibility depends on certain factors, such as who recorded it and the deponent's mental and physical condition.

What Is Dying Deposition?

Depositions are testimonies made under oath and recorded in writing by an authorized officer of the court. The person making the deposition is called the deponent. They usually involve key witnesses, including the plaintiff or defendant in the case. The primary objective of a deposition is to collect evidence and information to prevent surprises at the trial..

A dying deposition is a testimony of a person who believes that they are on their deathbed. It is also made under oath, in the presence of a magistrate, as a normal deposition. This testimony is considered to be more reliable than a dying declaration because it is procedurally sound and is admissible in both civil and criminal cases.

Admissibility & Recording

However, a dying deposition is not directly admissible as evidence in court because it is hearsay. It can be used to corroborate or impeach the testimony of a witness who is present at trial. To make dying depositions relevant, the following conditions must be met:

• If deemed truthful and voluntary by the court, dying declaration can solely lead to a conviction, needing no further corroboration.
• For admissibility, the declarant must have died, and the statement must relate to the cause or circumstances of their death.
• The declarant must be mentally fit and provide the statement freely, without coercion.
• The declaration doesn't require an oath or the declarant to have hope of recovery; the belief of imminent death suffices.
• A dying declaration can be recorded by any normal person, police officer, doctor, or magistrate

Difference Between Dying Declaration And Dying Deposition

Here's the key difference between a dying declaration and a dying deposition:

Conclusion

Understanding the difference between dying declaration and dying deposition is essential for appreciating their unique roles in legal proceedings. While a dying declaration is a statement made in anticipation of death and carries weight based on the assumption of truth, a dying deposition offers greater reliability due to its formal recording under oath and legal safeguards, including cross-examination.

Both concepts are vital in criminal and civil cases, each serving its purpose based on the circumstances and procedural requirements. By grasping these distinctions, legal professionals and individuals alike can better navigate their application in real-world scenarios. Whether for academic or practical purposes, recognizing these differences ensures a clearer understanding of their impact on justice and legal outcomes.