BACK TO IEA 1872
IEA 1872Chapter III

Section 32

Cases in Which Statement of Relevant Fact by Person Who Is Dead or Cannot Be Found Is Relevant

Of Admissions
Quick Legal SummaryBSA BSA S.27
Statutory Snapshot
THE STATUTE

Original Text

Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:— (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 expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. (2) When the statement was made in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by the person of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. (3) When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. (4) When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any relationship, by blood, marriage or adoption, between himself and any other person, if the opinion shall have been formed before the question in dispute was raised. (5) When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship, by blood, marriage, or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait, or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. (6) When the statement relates to the existence of any custom or right. (7) When the statement was made by a number of persons, and expressed feelings or impressions on their part.

Legal Commentary

Section 32 is the general exception to the hearsay rule for statements by deceased persons — with the dying declaration in Section 32(1) being by far the most important in practice. **Section 32(1) — Dying Declaration — the most litigated:** *What it covers:* Any statement by a deceased person about the cause of their death OR about the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in their death. In practice: a murder victim who names their attacker; a road accident victim describing the accident; a domestic violence victim describing the beating that preceded their death. *No expectation of death required:* Unlike English law (which required the declarant to be under expectation of imminent death — 'in articulo mortis'), the IEA has no such requirement. The statement is admissible whether or not the person expected to die when making it. This dramatically expands the scope of the Indian dying declaration — a victim who names their attacker in a hospital before any expectation of death, who then later dies from injuries, makes a valid dying declaration. *No oath required:* A dying declaration is admissible without the declarant having been sworn. The sanctity of a death-bed statement is its own assurance — the law presumes a dying person has no motive to lie. *Multiple dying declarations:* A person may make multiple dying declarations — to a police officer, to a magistrate, to a doctor, to family members. All are admissible. Inconsistencies between them affect weight, not admissibility. *Can a dying declaration alone convict?* Yes — Section 32(1) dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction if the court is satisfied of their reliability. There is no rule requiring corroboration. The Supreme Court has consistently held this — though courts look for corroboration where possible. **The BSA Section 27 extension — electronic dying declarations:** The most significant change in BSA Section 27 is the explicit inclusion of statements made through electronic means — a dying person who sends a WhatsApp voice note, records a video on their phone, or sends an email naming their attacker makes a valid dying declaration under BSA Section 27. The IEA Section 32 required 'written or verbal' — electronic statements were covered by interpretation but not explicit text. **Section 32(2) — Business records:** Entries made in books kept in the ordinary course of business are admissible hearsay — because routine business entries are made without anticipation of litigation and are therefore likely reliable. This covers account books, transaction records, and professional records. **Section 32(3) — Statements against interest:** A statement made by a deceased person against their own pecuniary or proprietary interest is relevant — the logic being that people don't make false statements against their own interest.

Legislative Intent & Background

Section 32's dying declaration provisions reflect Indian society's recognition that a dying person's last words have particular sanctity. The IEA's absence of an expectation-of-death requirement (unlike English law) was a deliberate choice — giving greater evidentiary value to victims' pre-mortem statements. This has been crucial in domestic violence and dowry death cases.

Critical Provisions & Changes

BSA Section 27 extends dying declarations to electronic statements — WhatsApp audio/video, phone recordings, email.

BSA Section 27 codifies that a dying declaration recorded by Magistrate through audio-video electronic means is valid.

Section 32(1)'s 'no expectation of death' rule preserved in BSA.

The six-category structure of Section 32 is preserved in BSA Section 27.

Landmark Judicial Precedents

Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958)

AIR 1958 SC 22

Supreme Court's foundational dying declaration ruling — held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction; no corroboration rule applies; the critical question is whether the court is satisfied of its truthfulness. Remains the leading authority.

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002)

(2002) 6 SCC 710

Constitution Bench held that no particular form is required for a dying declaration — it need not be made to a magistrate or police officer, and the declarant need not be under expectation of death. Oral, written, gesture — all forms are valid.

Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of A.P. (1999)

(1999) 7 SCC 695

Supreme Court held that a dying declaration recorded by the doctor (not magistrate) is admissible and can be acted upon, though magistrate-recorded declarations have higher reliability. Weight assessed on facts.

Practical Scenarios & Illustrations

Dowry death: woman before death tells mother 'my husband and in-laws set me on fire.' Mother testifies about this. IEA Section 32(1): admissible dying declaration. Can convict if court is satisfied of its truthfulness.

Accident victim in hospital names rash driver to attending doctor before surgery. Doctor records statement. Patient later dies. IEA Section 32(1): dying declaration admissible — no expectation of death at time of statement required.

Murder victim records a WhatsApp voice note naming attacker, sends to sibling, then dies. Under IEA Section 32(1): interpretively admissible as verbal dying declaration. Under BSA Section 27: explicitly admissible as electronic statement.

Questions & Answers

Yes — the Supreme Court has consistently held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, without requiring corroboration, if the court is satisfied of its truthfulness (Khushal Rao). However, courts typically look for: (1) that the declarant was in a fit state of mind to make the statement; (2) that the statement was voluntary and not tutored; (3) that the doctor certified fitness to make the statement (for oral declarations). Multiple dying declarations that are consistent strengthen the case.
No — IEA Section 32(1) explicitly says the dying declaration is admissible 'whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death.' A statement made to a police officer or doctor before the person knows the full severity of their injuries is a valid dying declaration if the person later dies.
No — dying declarations can be oral, written, or recorded by anyone (doctor, police officer, family member, or even a witness). Magistrate-recorded declarations have higher evidentiary weight in practice (the magistrate's certification adds reliability). But oral declarations to family members, video recordings on phones, and statements to first responders are all admissible. The BSA Section 27 explicitly extends this to electronic means.

Related Statutory Provisions

Section 3
Definitions
Section 17
Admissions
Section 45
Expert opinion