Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872
evidence ap_lawcet intermediate discussionSection 60 is very clear, "when the statement, made by a person as a dying declaration, is in relation to the cause of whatever he died of, such statement is relevant fact". But what if the person wasn't dying, but was just seriously injured? Should we consider it a dying declaration or not?
I'm firmly on the side that it should be considered a dying declaration. After all, Section 32(1) says "dying declaration" simply refers to a statement made by a person as to the cause of his death, or the circumstances of the event which caused his death. And what if the person survived, but was still unconscious? Still, the statement can be relevant. The fact that he didn't die immediately shouldn't disqualify the statement. It's time to update our understanding of dying declarations.
What do you guys think?
Additional Info: Section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "Hearsay Evidence", but it's actually Section 63 where the real provision comes into play regarding its admissibility. It says hearsay evidence is admissible in certain courts & proceedings, like in civil cases & in court proceedings where the maker of statement is dead, or is absent, or cannot be found. This is a very important provision & you need to understand it well to ace your law exams.