(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. SABEILA

AC-AP-627-1966

Principles

·  Evidence—Hearsay-—Dying declaration exception—Criminal Court Circular No. 14— Admissible even if person is not under expectation of death—Corroboration is ssential in cases of serious crimes

According to Criminal Court Circular. No. 14, dying declaration is admissible even though the person who made the statement was not under expectation of death at the time he made it. In the Sudan. Indian rules concerning the admissibility of dying declaration are followed, but not those of England. In cases of serious crimes. It is essential that dying declaration must be corroborated by independent evidence as a matter of prudence and not of law.
 

Judgment 

Salab E. Hassan J. (By authority of the Chief Justice), November 15, 1966: —The most important piece of evidence In this case is the declara tion of the deceased victim. The President of the Major Court decided that we have to follow the English Rules concerning dying declarations and accordingly he ruled that the declaration of the victim is inadmissible. This in my opinion is wrong. According to Criminal Court Orcular, No. 14, it is clearly stated as follows

“The rules to be followed In this country regarding the admission of ‘dying declaration’ are those of the Indian, not the English courts. Statements, whether written or verbal, made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death, may be proved in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such state ments are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at toe time wnen tney were mane, under expectaion of death and whatever may be the nature of the proceedin in which the cause of death comes into question.”

According to these rules all the statements made by the decea before his death and after he was injured are admissible as evidence.

I entirely agree with the argument of the learned President in t alternative, i.e., after admitting the dying declaration. The dcclarat itself is rather vague by mentioning Sabeila and then the housed Sabeila. In addition to its vagueness there is no hsdependunt corrobtion, which I believe is essential in such serious crime.

I have decided to confirm the findings and order of aquittal.

Editor’s Nate: See Sudan Government v. Mohamed Adm Onour

Another, AC-CP-232-1957, (1963) S.L.J.R157.