Three Dying Declarations, a Mobile Video and the Dowry Death Presumption

All three are relevant under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), because each relates to the cause of the declarant's death. The settled method is:

• No prescribed form. A dying declaration need not be recorded by a Magistrate, need not be in writing and needs no corroboration if it is found true, voluntary and made in a fit state of mind.
• Fitness of mind is the first question. A medical certification is valuable but not indispensable; conversely, a certification is not conclusive. Here the doctor's entry that she was 'conscious and oriented' is significant precisely because the doctor had no reason to favour the accused.
• Multiple declarations must be read together. The court must ask whether they are consistent, whether the differences are material or peripheral, and which version fits the surrounding circumstances (who was present, the timing, the burn percentage, whether she was able to speak).
• If one declaration is found wholly true and voluntary, it alone can sustain a conviction. If the declarations are mutually destructive and no version can be accepted beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit goes to the accused.

Application to these facts: the oral statement names the husband and the mother-in-law and speaks of a Rs 3 lakh demand; the police statement and the doctor's entry record accidental burns. The defence will argue that the police statement is unsigned, uncertified and suspicious, and that the mother, as an interested witness, may have improved on what was said. The prosecution will argue that the oral statement to the mother was spontaneous and made when the deceased had no reason to lie.

Direction of the finding: the conflict goes to the very cause of death. Unless the oral statement is corroborated by independent circumstances - prior complaints, panch witnesses, the demand evidence, the position of the stove, the burns pattern - a conviction should not rest on it alone.

An electronic record is a 'document' (Section 3, Evidence Act; Section 2(1)(t) BSA, 2023), but its admissibility as secondary electronic evidence requires a certificate under Section 65B(4) (Section 63 BSA, 2023).

• The certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence; without it the record cannot be proved by production of a copy or a printout.
• The court may, in appropriate cases, permit the certificate to be produced later, but the gap cannot be filled at the appellate stage without explanation, and it cannot be used to ambush the defence.
• On these facts: no certificate accompanies the video. It cannot be used as proof of its contents unless the brother produces the original device and a certificate under Section 65B(4) is filed.

Even if admitted, weight is a separate question:

• who recorded it, on whose instruction, and whether the deceased knew she was being recorded;
• whether the clip is continuous and unedited, and whether the beginning and end have been trimmed;
• whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind at that moment;
• whether she was speaking on her own or being prompted.

At its highest the video is a fourth dying declaration. It cannot cure the inconsistency among the other three; it can only add to the material to be weighed. The practical course is to call for the certificate under Section 65B(4) before the defence evidence stage begins, failing which the video must be excluded from consideration.

Ingredients of Section 304B IPC:

1. death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances;
2. within seven years of her marriage;
3. she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or a relative of the husband;
4. the cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry; and
5. it was 'soon before her death'.

If all five are proved, Section 113B raises a presumption that the husband or relative caused the dowry death, and the burden shifts to the accused to show that the death was not a dowry death.

Application:

• Death by burns within 25 months of marriage satisfies ingredients 1 and 2.
• Ingredient 4 rests entirely on the mother's evidence of the Rs 3 lakh demand. She is an interested witness, but that only calls for careful scrutiny; it does not make her evidence inadmissible. Look for corroboration in the FIR, any prior complaint, or the deceased's own statements.
• 'Soon before death' requires a live link and proximity between the cruelty and the death. A demand made a fortnight earlier satisfies that requirement if believed.

Conclusion: if the demand is proved, the presumption under Section 113B operates and the oral dying declaration becomes corroboration rather than the sole foundation of the case. If the demand is not proved, no presumption arises, and the case must be decided on the dying declarations alone - which conflict on the cause of death.

The court must also test the alternative explanation: was the death an accident? Pravin's version that she caught fire while cooking is supported by two records; he has to satisfy the court that it is a reasonable explanation once the presumption is triggered.