Ambit of dying declaration synthesized with Dignified Death

 

INTRODUCTION

The principle of Nemo Moriturns Prasumitus Mennre dictates that no person shall be presumed to lie as to the consequences or circumstances of their death, at the time of their death. The palpable feeling impending death, produces a virtuous effect similar to an individual under oath. This is the prime philosophy to be considered when talking about the admissibility of Dying Declaration in a Court of Law. However, in the recent case of death of saint Narendra Giri, the point of whether the circumstances surrounding the death can be attributed to dying declaration becomes moot. We shall look at whether the peculiar intricacies of the situation which led to the death of the saint can be considered under the umbrella of Dying Declaration. 

Moreover, when we consider the rights of a person to a dignified death, it should be a practice that an individual shall be left alone in the realm of their afterlife and the cause and circumstance of their death, if at their own will, shall not be interfered. We shall analyze the death of the saint, keeping in mind the right of an individual to end their own life in a dignified manner and emphasize why there shall be no interference beyond the required ambits of Criminal Procedure. 

APPLICABILITY OF DYING DECLARATION

The dying declaration is a statement by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances resulting in his death, and it becomes ad rem under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the cause of death of that person comes into question. The major speck is that a dying declaration is not a deposition in court and neither made on oath nor in the presence of the accused. It is, therefore, not tested by cross-examination on behalf of the accused.

It merely serves to put the court on its guard while testing its reliability by imposing on it an obligation to closely scrutinise all the relevant attendant circumstances. In order to determine as to whether the dying declaration was truthful, the main criteria are:

1. Opportunity of dying man of observation: The Dying Declaration can be taken into consideration if the circumstances were conducive to making an observation, at the time of commission of the crime, for the declarant. 

2. Capacity to remember remained unpaired: The Dying Declaration can be taken into consideration if it was made by a person who had adequate mental faculty to remember the stated facts as they transpired. 

3. A consistent statement: The Dying Declaration cannot be considered if it is self-contradictory or does not follow logically, it should be exact.

4. No tutoring: A Dying Declaration which is not at the free will of the person making it cannot be taken into consideration. 

Suicide Note as a Dying Declaration

Dying Declaration is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies either by homicide or suicide, provided the statement related to the cause of death or exhibits circumstances leading to death. The dying declaration can be in cyclo-styled form and the physical and mental condition of a declarant cannot be discharged simply by a certificate of a doctor rather, it should be properly proved with sufficient evidence. However, it cannot be laid down as absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. Moreover, there is no rule of law nor precedent that dying declaration requires corroboration. 

It can be seen in the suicide note in the present case, that it was of around 7-8 pages and had an ambiguity relating to the date of death. However, if any evidence shows that only a part of dying declaration relied upon is correct and not whole. The court can act upon the part of dying declaration. Due to the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, it is necessary to widen the scope of Dying Declaration section to avoid injustice. As in cases of suicide, it is hard to pin down the mental condition of the declarant. Hence, the suicide note in the present case can be qualified as Dying Declaration. 

ENSURING A DIGNIFIED DEATH 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) in the Case of Common Cause v. Union of India espoused that the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such right up to the end of natural life, which also includes the right to a dignified life till the point of death including a dignified procedure of death, upholding the Right to Die with Dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If we gaze at the expansive horizon of this statement from a different angle, it can be said that to preserve the dignity of an individual’s death, an investigation into the circumstances of the death beyond the procedural requirements and in pursuit of populist measures, should be considered violative of this right. It has become a common practice of the Indian Masses, to raise a hue and cry, whenever a known public figure dies by suicide and the same is exploited by the Ruling Establishment, as was seen before in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death and its investigation.  

The main cause of the interference in an individual’s right to a dignified death in such cases is the social stigma attached to Suicide. Death by Suicide shall be embraced by the public conscience as an individual’s own decision to end their life in a dignified manner. If an individual has a right to do something, they have an equal and apposite right to not do that thing, the same view was taken by the SC in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India. Legal Provisions like Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes the attempt to suicide, reinforce the stigma in a statutory manner. The Legislature should attain a progressive stance in face of such provisions, like that taken by the SC in P. Rathinam v Union of India by holding the aforementioned provision unconstitutional. 

CONCLUSION 

We witness a systemic problem taking place with regard to how the death, especially suicide, of a well renowned individual is dealt in India, by the media, investigating agencies and the government. Hence, it was only imperative to clarify the procedural aspect with respect to the statements that the individual leaves behind. It shall be the duty of our government to enact orders and legislations to placate the mass hysteria about suicide, as mentioned above. Instead, the Executive exercises its power to probe and investigate celebrity death unabatingly and therefore interfering in an individual’s right to death with dignity. This castes aspersions on the fundamental principle of Nemo Moriturns Prasumitus Mennre and reduces the public faith in the acceptability of Dying Declaration as evidence in the Court of Law.  

Authored by Shataxi Shukla and Udayan Dwivedi

Feel free to share with your peers