Motive Becomes Insignificant with Dying Declaration

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (2025) restored the conviction of a man for murdering his wife, observing that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution when there is clear and credible direct evidence, such as a dying declaration. 

What was the Background of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (2025) Case? 

• The respondent (husband) was accused of setting his wife ablaze, leading to her death. 
• The deceased wife recorded a dying declaration in the presence of an executive magistrate, naming her husband and accusing him of setting her on fire. 
• The trial court convicted the respondent for murder based on the dying declaration and other evidence. 
• In 2014, the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused, overturning the trial court's conviction. 
• The High Court reasoned that the absence of any pending litigation between the spouses showed a lack of animosity. 
• The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive explaining why the accused would commit such a grave act. 
• The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's acquittal order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench disagreed with the High Court's decision, holding that proving motive is not necessary when there is direct evidence proving the crime. 
• The Court observed that "Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case." 
• Since the deceased's dying declaration was consistent, making it direct evidence against the respondent, the Court held that proving motive became insignificant. 
• The Court noted that the evidence on record disclosed that the respondent subjected the deceased to frequent quarrels, humiliation and verbal abuse, including branding her a "Kanjri" and repeatedly asking her to leave the matrimonial home. 
• The dying declaration itself referred to persistent matrimonial discord and ill-treatment, thereby furnishing a plausible background for the commission of the offence. 
• The Court emphasized that "the prosecution is not required to establish motive with mathematical precision and failure to conclusively prove motive does not weaken an otherwise reliable and cogent case." 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's conviction and ordering the respondent to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence. 

What is the Rule of Dying Declaration? 

• The doctrine of dying declaration is based on the Latin maxim "Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire" (a person will not meet their maker with a lie in their mouth). The principle assumes that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie, making such statements uniquely trustworthy. 
• Dying declarations are an important exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Now under New Criminal Law it is covered under Section 26(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).  
• A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, regarding the cause or circumstances of their impending death. This is an important exception to the hearsay rule in evidence law. 
• While hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, statements made by a person about the cause or circumstances of their death are considered admissible evidence regardless of whether the declarant expected to die when making the statement. 
• These declarations can take various forms - oral, written, or even through signs and gestures - and are considered valuable evidence in legal proceedings where the cause of death is in question. 

What are the Key Principles of Dying Declaration? 

• Exception to Hearsay Rule: Normally, hearsay evidence (second-hand information) is inadmissible in court, but dying declarations are a notable exception. 
• Psychological Foundation: The principle is based on the belief that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie. The law presumes that the consciousness of impending death serves as a powerful stimulus to tell the truth. 
• No Expectation of Death Requirement: As your quoted section explicitly states, the statement is admissible "whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death." This is significant as it removes what was traditionally a requirement in common law. 
• Broad Application: The declaration can be used "whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question," meaning it applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. 
• Form of Declaration: The declaration can be written or verbal, and in some jurisdictions may even be through gestures or signs. 
• Subject Matter Limitation: The declaration must relate to the cause of death or circumstances surrounding the transaction that resulted in death. 
• No Oath Requirement: Unlike regular testimony, dying declarations are admissible without being made under oath.