Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
The dying declaration is the most heavily examined item in the whole of the relevancy module, and the question is always the same: can a conviction rest on it alone, and if so on what conditions?
Two lines of thought had to be reconciled. The Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami had read the words as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death generously, holding that a statement by the victim that he was proceeding to the spot where he was killed, or as to his reason for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by that person, would each be a circumstance of the transaction. That reading casts the net very wide. Against it stands the obvious anxiety about a statement made by a person who cannot be cross-examined. Khushal Rao is where the Supreme Court settles the position.
Facts
The case came to the Supreme Court on the strength of a dying declaration. The point of law was the status of such a declaration as a species of evidence, and the conditions on which a court may act on it.
Held
The principles laid down by the Privy Council on dying declarations were accepted. The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration, as a piece of evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence. It has to be judged and appreciated in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and its weight determined by reference to the ordinary principles governing the weighing of evidence.
Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, that is sufficient for conviction.
Reasoning
Four propositions come out of the judgment, and an answer that lists them in this order is doing the work the examiner wants.
One — no special category of weakness. A dying declaration is not inherently weaker than other evidence, so no rule of law requires corroboration. It is weighed like everything else.
Two — quality, not quantity. It is not the plurality of dying declarations that adds weight to the prosecution case but their qualitative worth. Where there are several declarations and they are inconsistent with one another on material points, a conviction is unsafe.
Three — the test is confidence, not polish. A perfectly worded and neatly structured declaration may itself create suspicion, because such statements need not be drawn with mathematical precision; what matters is that the declarant was able to recollect the situation. It is not enough that the declaration was correctly recorded and truly represents what the declarant said. It must be of a nature that inspires full confidence before it can form the basis of a conviction.
Four — the proximity rule, and its limits. The proximity rule laid down by the Privy Council means that the circumstances must have some proximity to the actual occurrence. But the test of proximity cannot be too literally construed or reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application, so as to confine the section in a strait-jacket. The question is whether the statement was not too remote in time from the point of death.
Exam use
This is the anchor authority for any question on BSA s. 26(a). State the proposition — same footing as any other evidence, conviction may rest on it alone if it is true, voluntary and inspires full confidence — then work through the facts of the problem: the declarant's capacity to recollect, who recorded the statement and how, consistency between multiple declarations, and proximity to the occurrence.
It disposes of the argument that a dying declaration always requires corroboration, and equally of the argument that a recorded and accurate declaration must be acted on.
It does not decide who may record a declaration, nor does it require a magistrate or a doctor's fitness certificate as a condition of admissibility; those are matters going to the confidence the statement inspires.