Dying Declaration: Legal Concept, Key Ingredients, Landmark Cases, and Implications in the Atul Subash Case

Introduction

A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their death. In legal terms, it is a special exception to the general rule of hearsay, where such statements are admissible as evidence in court. This rule is based on the belief that a person on the verge of death is unlikely to lie, driven by the natural human inclination to speak the truth in their final moments. While the concept has been an essential part of criminal law, its application is nuanced and subject to strict legal scrutiny.

This article explains the concept of a dying declaration, its key ingredients, the standing of the courts in various landmark cases, and the implications of the recent Atul Subash case in determining whether it can be considered a dying declaration.

Key Ingredients of a Dying Declaration

For a statement to qualify as a dying declaration, the following key ingredients must be present:

1. Imminent Death: The declarant must believe they are about to die. This belief is crucial, as the statement is presumed to be truthful due to the emotional and psychological state of a person who perceives death as imminent. The declarant must make the statement in this belief, and the situation must not be ambiguous.
2. Cause or Circumstances of Death: The statement should directly relate to the cause or the circumstances surrounding the individual’s death. It can describe the events leading to the fatal injury, identify the perpetrator, or explain the nature of the attack or incident.
3. Mental Capacity: The person making the declaration must be mentally competent to understand the seriousness of the situation. The statement should not be made while under confusion, intoxication, or mental distress that prevents the person from comprehending the situation.
4. Clarity and Specificity: The declaration should be clear and unambiguous. The details provided must be specific enough to be relied upon in court. General or vague statements may not be admissible.
5. Admissibility in Court: Dying declarations are admissible in court as an exception to the rule of hearsay, even though the person making the statement is unavailable for cross-examination. Courts assume that the declaration was made in good faith, without any intention to deceive, given the belief in imminent death.

Legal Framework in India

In India, the legal framework for dying declarations is provided under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

“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 statement is a relevant fact.”

This section allows the court to admit statements made by a person who has since died, provided they concern the cause or circumstances of the death and were made while the person believed their death to be imminent.

In the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the concept of a dying declaration is addressed in Section 26(a). This provision pertains to statements made by a person who is deceased or cannot be found, specifically concerning the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it. Such statements are considered relevant in legal proceedings, regardless of whether the individual was under the expectation of death at the time the statement was made.

Key Aspects of Section 26(a) of the BSA:

• Scope of Statements: Covers statements made by a person who is dead or cannot be found, relating to the cause of their death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in their death.
• Relevance: These statements are deemed relevant in cases where the cause of the person’s death is in question, irrespective of the declarant’s expectation of death at the time the statement was made.
• Admissibility: Such statements are admissible as evidence, even if the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination, due to the presumption of truthfulness when facing imminent death.

This provision aligns with the principle that statements made by individuals who believe they are about to die are presumed to be truthful, as they are unlikely to lie when facing death. Therefore, under Section 26(a) of the BSA, dying declarations are considered a substantive piece of evidence in legal proceedings.

Landmark Cases on Dying Declaration

The concept of dying declaration has been examined and defined in several landmark cases. The following cases provide critical insights into its application:

1. K. Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a dying declaration could be accepted even if it was not made in the presence of a magistrate. The court stressed that as long as the declaration met the criteria of being made under the belief of imminent death, it was admissible as evidence.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh (2005): The Supreme Court reinforced that the dying declaration must be recorded in a clear and coherent manner. It cannot be treated as mere testimony; it must be a voluntary and truthful account of the incident that led to the person’s death.
3. Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981): This case emphasized that the statement made by the deceased must relate directly to the cause of death and must be corroborated by other evidence in the case. The court also noted that the credibility of the dying declaration depends on the mental state and circumstances of the declarant.
4. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002): The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no requirement for a dying declaration to be in writing or in the presence of a magistrate. Oral declarations, if proven to be clear and made voluntarily under the belief of imminent death, can be admissible.

The Atul Subash Case: Can It Be Considered a Dying Declaration?

Now, when we turn our attention to the Atul Subash case, it presents some interesting legal questions about whether a statement made by him, in the context of his long-term planning, can qualify as a dying declaration.

Atul Subash, according to reports, had been planning his actions for months before his death. If he had made any statements during this period about his imminent death, there would likely be challenges in considering those statements as dying declarations.

1. Imminence of Death: If Atul’s statements were made as part of a long-term plan rather than in the immediate anticipation of death, it would weaken the argument that the statements were made under the belief of imminent death.
2. Premeditation: The fact that he had been planning his actions for months suggests a level of premeditation that is inconsistent with the notion of making a statement at the threshold of death. In legal terms, dying declarations are typically made spontaneously, not as part of a prearranged plan.
3. Mental State: If Atul had planned his actions over a long period, this might indicate that his mental state was stable and not one influenced by the belief that death was imminent. In such cases, his statement may be treated differently from a traditional dying declaration.

Given these factors, the Atul Subash case may not meet the criteria to be considered a dying declaration. His long-term planning and the absence of immediate fear of death may undermine the argument that his statement was made under the expectation of imminent death. Instead, it might be treated as part of the evidence of a premeditated act, not a dying declaration.

Can Courts Take Help from Psychologists in Analyzing the Video of Atul Subash?

In the context of legal cases, courts sometimes rely on expert testimony to analyze complex psychological or behavioral elements that may be relevant to a case. This can include understanding a person’s mental state, motivations, or the context in which certain statements or actions were made. In the Atul Subash case, where there is a video involved, psychologists can indeed play a significant role in helping the court interpret the emotional and psychological aspects of the video. Here’s how psychologists could assist the court:

1. Understanding Mental State:

Psychologists or forensic psychologists could help assess Atul Subash’s mental state when the video was made. This includes evaluating his emotional state, intentions, and whether he was experiencing any psychological distress, such as depression, anxiety, or premeditation.

• Premeditation or Emotional Distress: If the video reveals Atul’s behavior or speech patterns, a psychologist can provide insights into whether his actions were premeditated, emotionally driven, or influenced by any external factors like mental health issues. For instance, they could assess whether his expressions and words point to a rational plan or if they indicate confusion or stress.
• Mental Competency: Psychologists can also help determine whether Atul was mentally competent when making the video or recording a statement. This assessment is crucial if there’s a possibility of him being under distress, making statements that might not reflect his true intentions.
  1. Analyzing Non-Verbal Cues:

Psychologists specializing in non-verbal communication can assist in interpreting the body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and overall demeanor of Atul in the video. These elements may provide crucial information about his mental and emotional state at the time the video was made.

• Psychological Evaluation of Behavior: If the video depicts Atul giving a statement or performing actions leading to his death, psychologists could help determine whether his body language and facial expressions suggest fear, anger, sadness, or confusion. These non-verbal cues may offer critical insights into whether he was acting under duress, with a clear mind, or in a state of emotional turmoil.
• Assessing Coherence and Rationality: The psychological evaluation could also focus on whether Atul’s statements in the video were coherent and rational, indicating clarity of thought, or whether they showed signs of irrationality, distress, or cognitive dissonance, which might be relevant to the case.

3.Voice Analysis and Psychological Profiling:

If the video contains audio, psychologists can conduct a voice analysis to detect emotional shifts such as fear, anxiety, anger, or calmness. These elements can help understand whether Atul was under emotional stress or if he seemed calm and deliberate.

• Psychological Profiling: By analyzing the tone, speech patterns, and emotional fluctuations, psychologists may assist in profiling Atul’s psychological state. This may be useful in determining his intentions or understanding if his behavior was indicative of premeditation, guilt, or other psychological conditions that could affect his actions.

4.Evaluation of the Video’s Content in the Context of Mental Health:

If Atul had been experiencing any psychological conditions such as depression or anxiety, experts in psychology could help assess whether these conditions were influencing his actions or his decision-making at the time the video was made. This would be particularly relevant if there’s a suspicion that his mental health played a role in his statements or actions.

• Impact of Mental Health on Decision Making: A psychologist may analyze whether Atul’s statements and behavior in the video could have been influenced by mental health issues, such as suicidal tendencies, depression, or psychosis. This could potentially explain the context in which he made certain decisions or statements that might appear unusual.

5.Behavioral Analysis and Decision Making:

A behavioral psychologist could assist in understanding why Atul might have engaged in certain actions, especially if these actions seem out of character or lead to tragic outcomes. The psychologist could offer insights into whether his decision-making was rational or if he acted impulsively.

• Behavioral Patterns: Psychologists can analyze whether Atul’s behavior shows patterns of impulsivity or strategic thinking, both of which could influence how the court views his actions in the broader context of his life and death.

6.Forensic Psychology in Criminal Investigations:

Forensic psychologists are often called upon in criminal investigations to evaluate how psychological factors might contribute to a crime or event. They can assist the court in analyzing whether Atul’s behavior in the video is consistent with common patterns of behavior for people in similar circumstances.

• Link to Criminal Behavior: If the video indicates any signs of violence, threats, or premeditation, forensic psychologists can provide expert opinions on how these behaviors correlate with known patterns of criminal behavior. They can also help determine if the behavior shown in the video was influenced by psychological factors like stress, trauma, or a history of mental illness.

7.Admissibility of Psychological Evidence in Court:

Psychologists’ analyses can help clarify issues of reliability and validity of the video and statements made within it. Courts can rely on expert psychological testimony to weigh the credibility of such evidence and understand how much weight it should carry in the context of the case.

• Corroborating Evidence: In the case of Atul Subash, psychologists could assist in evaluating whether the video serves as reliable evidence that aligns with other physical or circumstantial evidence. If the video contains confessions or statements about the cause of his death, experts might help assess its accuracy, based on psychological factors.

psychologists, particularly forensic psychologists, can play a crucial role in analyzing the video of Atul Subash. Their expertise could help the court understand Atul’s psychological state, the context in which he made the video, and the emotional undertones that may be present. Psychologists can provide valuable insights into whether his actions were rational, premeditated, or influenced by emotional or psychological distress.

In the case of Atul Subash, if the video includes any significant statements or actions linked to his death, psychologists could assist the court in evaluating the mental and emotional context behind these actions. Whether this leads to the acceptance of the video as a dying declaration or evidence of a premeditated crime, expert psychological analysis would undoubtedly be crucial in helping the court interpret the case more accurately.

By utilizing the insights provided by psychologists, the court can make a more informed decision about the role of the video and other related evidence in understanding Atul Subash’s motivations, state of mind, and the events leading to his tragic outcome.

Key Distinction Between Suicide and Dying Declaration:

The concepts of suicide and a dying declaration both involve death but differ greatly in terms of their nature, intent, legal implications, and the role they play in legal proceedings. While both can lead to the death of an individual, their purposes, psychological contexts, and the evidentiary weight they carry are fundamentally different. This article explores the distinctions between suicide and a dying declaration, providing a detailed legal and practical analysis of their significance.

1.Nature of the Event:

• Suicide:
  • Definition: Suicide refers to the act of intentionally taking one’s own life. It involves a self-inflicted death, typically stemming from mental distress, depression, or emotional turmoil.
  • Motivation: Suicidal acts are usually motivated by factors such as depression, emotional pain, psychological disorders, or a desire to escape suffering. The individual’s actions are typically carried out alone, and there may not be any intention to leave behind a statement or explanation for their death.
  • Outcome: In suicide, the person’s life ends through their own action. The death is self-inflicted, and there is generally no involvement of other parties in the act unless assistance or abetment is present, which may then lead to legal consequences for others involved.
• Dying Declaration:
  • Definition: A dying declaration is a statement made by an individual who believes they are about to die, often regarding the cause or circumstances surrounding their impending death. This is a legal concept, wherein such statements are admissible as evidence in court.
  • Motivation: Unlike suicide, the motivation behind a dying declaration is not self-harm but to provide clarity or evidence about the circumstances that led to their death, such as identifying a perpetrator, describing an assault, or explaining an accident.
  • Outcome: A dying declaration is made by a person who is still alive but believes their death is imminent. The statement becomes an important piece of evidence in legal proceedings and may be used in criminal investigations to identify the cause of death or provide insight into how the fatal injury occurred.

2.Legal Status and Implications:

• Suicide:
  • Legal Implications: In modern legal systems, suicide is generally no longer considered a criminal act, although historically it was viewed as such. However, the assistance or abetment of suicide is considered a criminal offense. In cases of suicide, the focus of legal investigations is often on determining whether there was external involvement, such as in cases of assisted suicide or abetted suicide.
  • Evidence: In investigating suicide, authorities often consider evidence like suicide notes, medical history, psychological factors, and any signs of mental health issues that may explain the person’s state of mind leading up to the act. However, suicide notes or other statements made by the individual are not automatically admissible as a “dying declaration” because they were not made in the belief that the individual was about to die imminently.
• Dying Declaration:
  • Legal Implications: A dying declaration is an exception to the rule against hearsay, making such statements admissible in court as evidence, even though the person making the statement is no longer available for cross-examination. It is presumed that the individual making the statement, knowing they are about to die, speaks truthfully because they are unlikely to lie in their final moments.
  • Evidence: In legal terms, dying declarations are valuable pieces of evidence in criminal trials. They may help identify the perpetrator of a crime, explain the circumstances surrounding the death (e.g., whether it was accidental or intentional), or provide important details about the events leading to death. These statements can play a critical role in homicide cases, where the identity of the perpetrator is in question.

3.Purpose of the Act or Statement:

• Suicide:
  • Nature of Statement: In many suicides, there may not be any statement made by the individual, and if there is, it is typically a suicide note. While such notes can offer insight into the person’s mental state or their reasons for ending their life, they are not legally categorized as a dying declaration.
  • Purpose: The purpose of suicide is the individual’s personal decision to end their life and is often not accompanied by a desire to provide information or evidence about their death. If a note is found, it is usually a final message to loved ones and may not be legally significant in the same way that a statement made under the belief of imminent death would be.
• Dying Declaration:
  • Nature of Statement: A dying declaration is a statement made about the cause or circumstances of a person’s death, typically made under the belief that death is imminent. The individual may disclose important details, such as how they were attacked, who caused the injury, or how the fatal event occurred.
  • Purpose: The purpose of a dying declaration is to provide evidence that can help clarify the circumstances surrounding the death. The person may want to implicate a perpetrator, provide crucial details about an accident, or clear up misunderstandings regarding the events leading to their death. The declaration is not motivated by self-inflicted harm but by the need to speak out before death.

4.Context of the Event:

• Suicide:
  • Context: Suicide typically involves an individual act of self-inflicted harm in which the individual has made the decision to end their life. The individual may not leave any statement or may leave a note explaining their reasoning. The context is often personal and private, centered around the individual’s internal struggles, and may not involve any external actors or witnesses.
• Dying Declaration:
  • Context: A dying declaration is usually made in the context of an incident or injury that leads to the person believing their death is near. The statement may be made in the presence of a witness (such as a police officer, doctor, or family member) and often occurs in a public or investigative context, not in isolation. The declarant’s intention is to provide clarity about the cause of their imminent death, which could involve external factors, such as a crime, an accident, or a violent act.

Key Differences Summarized:

Conclusion:

While both suicide and a dying declaration involve the ultimate loss of life, they differ in their intent, legal standing, and role in criminal investigations. Suicide is an act of self-inflicted harm, often done in isolation and without any intention to provide evidence regarding the circumstances of death. A dying declaration, on the other hand, is a statement made under the belief of imminent death to provide evidence about the cause of death, the events leading to it, or the identity of the person responsible.

The distinction between the two is important both in legal terms and in understanding the psychological and emotional states of individuals involved. Suicide notes, though often revealing, are not considered dying declarations, as they are typically written by individuals who are not in the belief of imminent death. In contrast, a dying declaration is made in the final moments of life to provide crucial details for legal proceedings and is treated as a vital piece of evidence in courts.

Understanding these distinctions helps clarify how each concept is viewed under the law and the evidentiary value it holds in criminal cases.

A dying declaration is an exceptional legal tool that allows the court to admit statements made by a deceased person, assuming they were made under the belief of imminent death and pertain to the cause of that death. Landmark cases have reinforced its importance and clarified its application in various contexts.

In the case of Atul Subash, the long-term planning involved complicates the issue. Given that his statements were part of a prolonged process rather than a belief in impending death, it is unlikely that his statement would qualify as a dying declaration. Instead, it might be considered part of the circumstantial evidence of his intentions.

The implications of this case highlight the importance of understanding the nuances of the dying declaration rule and its application in specific legal scenarios. It also underscores the necessity of a detailed investigation into the mental state, timeline, and context of statements made by individuals in such cases.

In conclusion, while dying declarations are crucial pieces of evidence, each case requires careful examination of the facts and circumstances to determine their admissibility in court. Atul subhash case may not qualify for dying declaration but may be a fit case of suicide.