Two sisters, S1 and S2 were staying in their house ‘X’ the accused who was husband of S1 came there shouting at S1 and attacked her for deserting him. She died on the spot. The other sister S2 was the only eye witness to this gruesome murder. While, so but before the trial of ‘X’ commenced S2 also died due to a disease in a hospital while undergoing treatment. However, while in hospital she stated clearly to the doctor as to how ‘X’ killed her sister S1. The doctor recorded the statement and she signed it. This statement of S2 to the doctor is adduced in evidence in the murder tnal of ‘X’. Decide the admissibility.

Facts of the Case

Two sisters, S1 and S2, were residing together in their house. ‘X’, the accused, was the husband of S1, who had been deserted by her. One day, ‘X’ came to the house in an angry state, shouting at S1 for deserting him. In the presence of S2, ‘X’ violently attacked S1, causing her death on the spot.

S2 was the sole eyewitness to this brutal murder. Before the commencement of the trial against ‘X’, S2 fell ill and was admitted to a hospital, where she later died due to disease, unconnected with the murder.

While undergoing treatment in the hospital, S2 made a clear statement to the doctor, narrating how ‘X’ murdered her sister S1. The doctor recorded the statement, and S2 signed it.

During the murder trial of ‘X’, the prosecution produced this recorded statement of S2 as evidence. The question arises regarding its admissibility.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the statement made by S2 to the doctor is admissible in evidence after her death?
2. Whether a statement made by a person who is not the victim, but an eyewitness, can be treated as a dying declaration?
3. Whether Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act applies when the cause of death of the maker of the statement is not the subject matter of inquiry?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceeding and Judgements

A. Dying Declaration – Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 32(1) provides that statements made by a person who is dead are relevant if:

The statement relates to the cause of his death, or
The statement relates 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.

Essential Requirement:
The cause of death of the person making the statement must be directly in issue.

B. Applicability to the Present Case

• S2 was not the victim of the murder.
• Her death was due to disease, not connected with the murder of S1.
• The trial concerns the cause of death of S1, not S2.
• Therefore, the cause of death of the maker of the statement (S2) is not in question.

Hence, Section 32(1) does NOT apply.

C. Statement to Doctor – Hearsay Rule

• Statements made to doctors are ordinarily hearsay unless they fall within an exception under Section 32.
• Since S2’s statement does not concern her own death, it does not qualify as a dying declaration.

D. Relevant Case Law

1. Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997)
   • Only statements falling strictly within Section 32(1) are admissible.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
   • Statements of witnesses who later die are inadmissible unless they relate to their own death.
3. Pakalanarayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)
   • The phrase “circumstances of the transaction” must have a direct relation with the death of the declarant.

E. Whether the Statement Can Be Used in Any Other Manner

• The statement cannot be substantive evidence.
• At best, it may be used for corroborative or investigative purposes, but not for conviction.

Possible Judgement

The Court is likely to hold that:

1. The statement made by S2 to the doctor is NOT admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Since S2’s death was not the subject matter of inquiry, her statement does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule.
3. The statement cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence to convict ‘X’.
4. The prosecution must prove the guilt of ‘X through other legally admissible evidence.

Final Conclusion

The statement made by S2 to the doctor is inadmissible in evidence. A dying declaration under Section 32(1) is admissible only when the statement relates to the cause or circumstances of the declarant’s own death. Since S2 died due to disease and not due to the act of ‘X’, her statement does not qualify as a dying declaration and cannot be used against the accused.

About lawgnan

If you want clear, reliable, and legally accurate explanations of complex evidence law concepts like dying declarations, co-accused confessions, and witness statements, visit Lawgnan.in—your trusted platform for simplified legal knowledge. Whether you are a law student, advocate, or someone preparing for competitive exams, Lawgnan.in offers structured notes, case summaries, and exam-oriented answers tailored to your needs. Stay ahead with updated legal content, insightful analysis, and professionally drafted explanations designed to help you score high and succeed in legal practice. Explore more detailed Evidence Act topics at Lawgnan.in today.