Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. 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 unreasona The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 it relates to cause of death. –– 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) or is made in course of business. –– When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; 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) or against interest of maker.–– 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) or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interest. –– When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed, he would have been likely to be
aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen.
(5) or relates to existence of relationship.–– When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons as to whose relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.
(6) or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs.–– 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 such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.
(7) or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause (a). –– When the statement is contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction as is mentioned in section 13, clause (a).
(8) or is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to matter in question. –– When the statement was made by a number of persons, and expressed feelings or impressions on their part relevant to the matter in question. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B; or A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of which she was ravished. The question is whether she was ravished by B; or The question is, whether A was killed by B under such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A’s widow. Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the rape and the actionable wrong under consideration, are relevant facts.
(b) The question is as to the date of A’s birth. An entry in the diary of a deceased surgeon regularly kept in the course of business, stating that, on a given day he attended A’s mother and delivered her of a son, is a relevant fact.
(c) The question is, whether A was in Calcutta on a given day. A statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept in the course of business, that on a given day the solicitor attended A at a place mentioned, in Calcutta, for the purpose of conferring with him upon specified business, is a relevant fact.
(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Bombay harbour on a given day. A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant’s firm by which she was chartered to their correspondents in London, to whom the cargo was consigned, stating that the ship sailed on a given day from Bombay harbour, is a relevant fact.
(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land. A letter from A’s deceased agent to A, saying that he had received the rent on A’s account and held it at A’s orders is a relevant fact.
(f) The question is, whether A and B were legally married. The statement of a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime, is relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a letter on a certain day. The fact that a letter written by him is dated on that day is relevant.
(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship. A protest made by the Captain, whose attendance cannot be procured, is a relevant fact.
(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way. A statement by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, is a relevant fact.
(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day in a particular market. A statement of the price, made by a deceased banya in the ordinary course of his business, is a relevant fact.
(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B. A statement by A that B was his son, is a relevant fact.
(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A. A letter from A’s deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact.
(m) The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married. An entry in a memorandum book by C, the deceased father of B, of his daughter’s marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact.
(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature exposed in a shop window. The question is as to the similarity of the caricature and its libellous character. The remarks of a crowd of spectators on these points may be proved.
Section 32, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 26 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 8
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 162
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 162
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 162 Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence
- Crpc 1973 s. 162
- s. 8 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
- s. 21 Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf
- s. 136 Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence
- s. 158 What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under section 32 or 33
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2002-08-27 (not same-date order-6 ROP; do not use the earlier 2002-02-27 order-2.pdf). Three-judge (M.B. Shah/P.V. Reddi/Dharmadhikari), Crl A 608/2001. A dying declaration under IEA 32 can sustain a conviction without corroboration if otherwise reliable; a doctor's certificate of fitness is not a condition precedent; a thumb-impression DD recorded by a magistrate is not invalid merely for want of medical certification. Map IEA 32 and successor BSA 26 (mapping.csv near-identical).
On this section: A reliable dying declaration under s.32 can convict without corroboration; a doctor's fitness certificate is not a condition precedent.
-
State of U. P vs Veer Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person who makes a statement believed to be a dying declaration subsequently survives, such statement must be treated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements can be used only for corroboration under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, and not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of accused persons solely on the ground that they were not named in such a limited statement, when they were named in the FIR and other evidence of their involvement exists, constitutes a manifest error of law and is indefensible. Appellate courts must apply their mind objectively to all evidence on record and not dispose of appeals on erroneous or incomplete analysis of evidence.
On this section: Dying declarations; distinguished from statements under Section 164 CrPC when the maker survives
-
Shudhakar vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a deceased makes multiple contradictory dying declarations in a criminal case, the court must examine each declaration independently on its own merit. The declaration which is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and is shown to be voluntary, truthful, made in conscious state of mind without tutoring or prompting, should be preferred over other contradictory declarations. A dying declaration, if found reliable and corroborated by substantial other evidence, can form the sole basis of criminal conviction without additional corroboration, and the absence of doctor's fitness certificate is not fatal if the person recording the declaration certifies that the deceased was in fit mental state. However, when one declaration is suspicious, made under duress or tutoring by interested parties, and is contradicted by medical and physical evidence, it should be rejected in favor of other declarations which stand corroborated by credible eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recoveries from place of occurrence.
On this section: Dying declaration as exception to hearsay rule - the Court extensively discussed this section which makes statements of a person who cannot be called as witness (dying person) admissible in evidence. This was the core statutory provision governing the case.
-
State of U. P vs Sunil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution fails to establish an independent, credible connection between the accused and the incident alleged, the entire edifice of circumstantial evidence collapses, regardless of individual pieces of physical evidence. Adverse inference from refusal to provide fingerprints or similar evidence cannot serve as the sole or primary basis for conviction. The burden of proof throughout remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Admissibility of statements by deceased persons - Referenced in context of using a deceased co-accused's confessional statement in evidence.
-
Vijay Kumar vs State Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration recorded by a competent judicial officer (magistrate) at the instance of a medical expert who has certified the declarant's fitness to make a statement is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon for conviction, notwithstanding minor procedural defects in compliance with procedural guidelines (such as lack of signature or thumb impression), provided the substantive content of the declaration is proved to be truthful through adequate corroborative material evidence including oral testimony of responsible official witnesses and documentary/circumstantial evidence such as seizure memos, medical records, and independent witness accounts. The guidelines for recording dying declarations are meant to ensure genuineness and test veracity but are not binding preconditions to admissibility; trivial defects do not vitiate otherwise reliable dying declarations that form part of a cohesive web of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Admissibility of statements made by person who believes death to be imminent and has ceased to entertain any hope of recovery. Applied to admit dying declaration of Laxman Singh recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate on August 5, 1980 at 2:30 PM.
-
Mrityunjoy Sett(d) by Lrs vs Jadunath Basak (d) by Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An admission made by a party in a court of law, originating from the person against whom it is sought to be produced, constitutes the best possible and most reliable form of evidence and shall hold good unless withdrawn or clarified by the admitting party. Such an admission shall carry greater evidentiary weight than uncorroborated documentary evidence like rent receipts, and shall be admissible and usable in all subsequent legal proceedings. Further, where a statutory notice prescribes a one month period expiring with a month of the tenancy, full and complete compliance is achieved when one month's clear time is provided, regardless of whether the underlying tenancy record contains documentary evidence suggesting a different calendar system, unless such evidence is substantiated by credible witness testimony from the document's creator. A High Court acting under Section 100 of the CPC cannot set aside the judgment and decree of a lower appellate court when the High Court itself acknowledges that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, as such interference would be contrary to settled principles of appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: Governs statements in documents made by persons who cannot be examined as witnesses. The court applied this section to examine the evidentiary status of rent receipts issued by Smt. Kamala Sett when she was not examined as a witness.
-
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Section 302 IPC) and the evidence establishes a different offense (e.g., Section 306 IPC) for which no formal charge was framed, conviction under the latter offense is permissible under Section 464 Criminal Procedure Code if: (1) the accused had adequate notice of the allegations constituting that offense through cross-examination of witnesses and his examination under Section 313; (2) the main facts sought to be established were explained to him clearly; (3) he was given a fair and full opportunity to defend himself against those allegations; and (4) no substantial prejudice was caused to the accused. The determination of prejudice must employ a broad vision focusing on substance rather than technicalities, with the ultimate inquiry being whether the accused received a fair trial.
On this section: Admissibility of the deceased's statements; the letter written by the deceased wife regarding the cause of her death and circumstances leading to her death was admitted as admissible evidence under this section.
-
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. that witness depositions in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate is not a curable irregularity but a fatal defect that renders the evidence inadmissible and vitiates the entire trial. Additionally, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and denial of this right prejudices the accused and violates principles of natural justice. When an Investigating Officer fails to appear for cross-examination, the evidence collected by that officer remains unproved and cannot be relied upon for conviction.
On this section: Exception to cross-examination requirement for certain statements
-
Laldeo Bhuian vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a murder case based on direct eyewitness testimony, when multiple credible eyewitnesses consistently testify to witnessing the commission of the offense, the absence of corroborating physical evidence (such as chemical analysis of seized articles) or procedural defects in investigation do not vitiate the conviction if the eyewitnesses are found to be reliable and their presence at the scene is reasonably explained. The court must focus on the quality and consistency of eyewitness testimony rather than technical investigative procedures when direct evidence of guilt is established.
On this section: Admissibility of documents when maker is dead or unavailable; post-mortem report admitted under this section as doctor was unavailable after retirement
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. Explanation.--An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to …
-
… But PW19 does not state about he recording the dying declaration of injured X or instructing PW23 in that regard. Thus, there is contradiction in the oral evidence of PWs.19 and 23 as to who recorded the dying declaration of X. 37. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the dying declaration. As per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there can be no dispute that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. However, such a dying declaration shall prove to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful; the maker thereof must be in a fit condition to make it. 38. Exs.P14-dying declaration recorded by …
-
… Patil at the time of recovery and he is having acquaintance with the hand writing of the I.O and the said I.O is no more. Hence, the evidence of PW21 is taken note of, since the evidence of PW21 is admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act and the testimony of PW1 with regard to the investigation conducted by the CW62- I.A.Patil is admissible. During the course of evidence of PW21, the defence has raised objections regarding marking of document pertaining to the investigation conducted by CW62- I.A.Patil. But under 32(2) of …
Questions about Section 32
What have the courts held on Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (27 Aug 2002) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A reliable dying declaration under s.32 can convict without corroboration; a doctor's fitness certificate is not a condition precedent. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 32, section 32 IEA, section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (27 Aug 2002).
What should I read with Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 13 (Facts relevant when right or custom is in question), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 8 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 26 (Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, commonly called hearsay or dying declaration, and cited as IEA 32, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
- 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts654 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.