A comes to the police station and lodges First Information Report that B has beaten him and has threatened to kill him… Decide whether First Information Report may be admitted as a dying declaration?

Question: A comes to the police station and lodges First Information Report that B has beaten him and has threatened to kill him. After two days A is murdered. B is arrested and prosecuted for the offence of murdering A.

Decide whether First Information Report may be admitted as a dying declaration? [U.P.C.J. 1991]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A comes to the police station and lodges First Information Report that B has beaten him and has threatened to kill him… Decide whether First Information Report may be admitted as a dying declaration?]

Answer

Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act talks about cases in which a statement of relevant fact by a person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.-

When it relates to the cause of death.-

(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,

Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

In case of death of the declarant, FIR can be used as a substantive piece of evidence if it relates to the cause of death of the declarant or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in the informant’s death within the meaning of Sec.32 (1) of I.E.Act as held in Damodar Prasad v. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 757.

Besides, admitting the dying declaration of the informant through FIR, in no other case FIR can be used as a substantive piece of evidence. FIR lodged by the deceased is admissible under section 32(1) as the statement of a person since deceased relating to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.

In the case of Munna Raja v. State of M.P. (AIR 1976 SC 2199) the court has held that an FIR can be treated as a dying declaration if the informant dies of his injuries after lodging the report to the police. In this case, Munna Raja and Chottan were tried by the Sessions Judge, Chattarpur on the charge that at about 10 a.m. on April 30th, 1969 they committed the murder of one Bahadur Singh.

Two eyewitnesses have turned hostile and learned Sessions Judge thought that it was unsafe to rely on their testimony. In this case, there were three dying declarations made by the deceased Bahadur Singh and the prosecution placed great reliance on them. The Sessions Court was also impressed by three dying declarations given by the deceased Bahadur Singh, but finally, the accused persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Sessions Court suffers from a patent infirmity because it wholly overlooks the earliest dying declaration which was made by the deceased soon after the incident. The Second dying declaration is the FIR lodged by the deceased at the police station. Probably the Sessions Court assumed that since the statement was recorded as an FIR, it could not be treated as a dying declaration. On the basis of such an assumption, the Sessions Court committed an error.

The Supreme Court also observed that after making the statement before the police the deceased Bahadur Singh succumbed to his injuries and therefore the statement can be treated as a dying declaration and is admissible U/s-32(1) of Indian Evidence Act.

The statement is admissible although it is made before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction: general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of the death are not admissible.

For instance, a complaint in writing made by a person who dies sometime thereafter, expressing apprehension of death at the hands of a person is admissible in evidence under this clause 1 of section 32, when the person whose conduct is the source of the apprehension is charged with the offence of murder of the person making the complaint.

In the case of Allijan Munshi, (1959) 61 Bom LR 1620, where the deceased had submitted a written complaint against her husband, to the Commissioner of Police, which stated that she was afraid she would be killed by her husband. It was held that the statement showing apprehension of death on account of the conduct of the husband was admissible under this clause.

Therefore, applying the reasoning of the Apex Court in the present case at hand, when A comes to the police station and lodges First Information Report that B has beaten him and has threatened to kill him and after 2 days A is murdered. B is arrested and prosecuted for the offence of murdering A. The FIR may be admitted as a dying declaration of A against B by virtue of section 32(1) of IEA.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X