- (1.)Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire literally means no one at the point of death is presumed to lie. Nobody normally may lie and die for fear of meeting his maker.
(2.)Acceptability and reliability of statement made by a person who is about to die, which statement, in common parlance, is known as dying declaration, has been the subject matter of several reported decisions of this Court and, therefore, it is not necessary to add one more to the same. However, for the purpose of understanding the first principles, we shall refer to a Constitution Bench decision in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 6 SCC 710 wherein at paragraph-3, it is held as follows:
"3. The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross- examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross- examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. "

(3.)Appellant is the first accused in Sessions Case No. 197 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A of IPC. The second accused who is the mother of the first accused, was convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, however, taking note mainly of the age of the second accused, maintaining the conviction under Section 498A of IPC, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.