Leterm Mortem - The Dying Declaration

The objective of the Judiciary is to render justice, wherein certain persons concerned with the case in hand are summoned to render their evidence as witness during the trial, but hearsay statements are not be considered by the Court. Whereas, the declaration made by the dying person is admissible in evidence. Leterm Mortem means, the words said before the death of a person. It is the ‘Dying Declaration’, either oral or in writing. An evidence is strongly considered if it is substantiated by a document, but if the same is a hearsay statement of the witness, it is rejected. Whereas, a dying declaration is admissible as evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. This is based on the legal maxim ‘nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire', which means ‘a man will not meet his maker with a lie on his mouth’. The early Lawmakers had reasons to believe that a statement made by a person who is conscious and knows that his death is imminent cannot be anything else than the truth. The Law considers such statement as vital evidence when it concerns the cause or circumstances of an issue before a Court of Law. Such a statement is taken on record as evidence during the trial of a case. No human being will be able to restrain his inner conscious in the final hours, hence only his dying statement is considered to be true.

Times of India published an article on the 2nd of March about the dying confessions of COVID patients shared with Dr M Raja Rao, Superintendent of the famous Gandhi Hospital at Hyderabad. After reading about the experiences of Dr Raja Rao in the news article, it was D Ravinder Reddy, the famous photojournalist, who called me and suggested that I should also interact with the Doctor. Ravinder Reddy’s view was that these incidents have to be analysed and spread more widely through my own perspective. It is a known fact that hundreds of patients have died in the State since the outbreak of the pandemic, and most of them at Gandhi Hospital. The news article states that many of the dying patients made some declaration or the other, revealing the truth to the Doctor when they became aware that their final hour had come. Many of the patients confessed to the Doctor about their wrongdoings and repented having done so against their near and dear.

After going through the article, my mind drifted to the year 1987 to a similar incident where my uncle, the head of our joint family, had repented to a business associate of ours about the origin of the legal battle that sparked between him and me. I was informed that the night my uncle died due to a massive heart attack, they were returning from Hyderabad after attending the case filed by me at the High Court. Earlier, my uncle unleashed a feud with his provocative remarks against me and when it blew out of proportion, it led to a fiery legal battle. Only on the fateful night, while returning from Hyderabad, my uncle reminisced that our joint family had a reputation of staying together for the past three generations and the misunderstanding could have been avoided. Unfortunately, our spat was very much open and he could not retreat, fearing that it might damage his reputation. Earlier, my apology tendered twice for having hurt him in a very minor issue was discarded by him, but he knew in his conscience that I did not fault intentionally. I always respected him and regarded him very high. My faults were amateurish, hence, could have been pardoned, but my uncle felt otherwise. With the events that followed his sudden demise, the entire joint family was scuttled to pieces. Had that last-minute confession been made earlier, the catastrophe could have been avoided, but I don’t blame him for he had his own reason.

I called Dr Raja Rao almost ten times in the last week and forwarded text messages too, requesting him to spare just five to ten minutes over the phone. He did answer my calls, but only to inform me that he was in the middle of a meeting at the hospital, sometimes with the healthcare workers or with his colleagues, and sometimes in a virtual meeting with the Principal Secretary of the State Government. Finally, a few days ago, he was generous enough to spare me a few minutes over the phone. I had prepared the questionnaire in advance in order to utilise every second while interacting with the Doctor. After confirming his experiences reported in the TOI, my first question to the Doctor was, “Doctor, what makes a human being speak the truth only when he believes that his life is coming to an end?” He responded instantaneously “Manasakshi” and continued, “it is the conscience that is also called the ‘inner mind’. It tells an individual about what is right and wrong.”

I connected immediately to his philosophical tone because such awareness did come upon me since the last decade. My second question was, “Doctor, which category of terminal patients gave such confessions?” “Of course, it is mostly the wealthy,” he answered. Then I asked, “Doctor, is it that only wealthy people commit wrongs? How is it so, Doctor?” I quipped, “Even the patients from weaker sections could have compromised on morals and ethos. After all, they are humans too.” The Doctor answered, “The poor have no agenda other than to secure two meals a day. They don’t even send their children to government schools, leave alone their lack of want to enjoy other meagre comforts of living. We should spare them for their shortcomings.” Then he surprised me with a quote in Telugu ‘pichivallu, pedavallu, anta maaji manchivallu’, which when translated to English means that ‘the mentally insane and the poor were all once the fair people’. Dr Raja Rao is no ordinary physician for he has great philosophical insight. The meaning of the quote is deeper than the abyss of the deepest of oceans. The Doctor had heard numerous such declarations in his 22 years of practice as a Physician from cancer patients, but such instances increased after the outbreak of COVID.

In the present context, there is no trial pending before a Court of law, nor there exists any person who is to be saved from a legal proceeding. It is the dying patient who makes a conscious choice to declare the truth by way of a confession to rescue himself from the imposition of any sanctions at the trial of the Celestial Court. Here, there is no oath taken on any Holy Text on which the dying person swears. He just sees everything crystal clear, devoid of illusion, through his conscience. All the other five senses retreat the stage as they have no role to play henceforth. Through his consciousness, the dying person speaks the truth to exonerate his soul that is about to depart from his body. Such volition of the dying person is with his strong belief that there is an ‘afterlife’ and in view of his true confessions made before his last breath, he might be pardoned for the most notorious of sins he had committed when he stands for trial before the Celestial Court.

My mind swiftly connected to the epic episode of the death sentence imposed on Socrates for speaking the truth during 399 BCE. Socrates was charged for two offenses—the first for lack of reverence to the Pantheon of Gods the Greeks had faith in and the second for corrupting the youth of Athens with his teachings. The elite citizens of Athens felt that Socrates was an intellectual with provocative criticism and a nuisance to society. Socrates deposed to the jury that he had no knowledge of such significance that could be taught to the youth, but he could only make them think. The great philosopher boldly stated that, “I will obey God rather than you”. He stated that his God is to be trusted and obeyed much more than a man should ever be, specifically because “God is wise and human wisdom is worth little or nothing.” He continued to explain before the Jury that, “I have no proof that there is indeed a God, other than my own thoughts.” It was the consequence of these instances that the death penalty was imposed on Socrates by the ‘dikastes’, the legal office in ancient Greece that was Judge and Jury. The mode of death sentence imposed on Socrates was by drinking the poisonous brewage made from hemlock.

The accusation read: "Socrates is guilty, firstly of denying the gods recognised by the state and introducing new divinities, and secondly, of corrupting the youth.” He was imprisoned after the announcement of the sentence, but he was very casual in prison without any worry. The reason why Socrates did not fear death was because he never acted against his conscience. His famous advise, ‘An unexamined life is not worth living’ is the principle he also practised on a day-to-day basis and avoided any battle within his mind. He persuaded his students to employ their time in other men’s writings, so that they would learn easily what others have laboured hard for. Socrates advised his students to inquire within themselves by posing the question, and half the answer can be known if the question is understood. Socrates asked his students to pose such questions within themselves and come out with logical answers. I pondered how true his teachings were, for we always hear the messages from our conscience but we deliberately act against them. Socrates was devoid of any guilt prior to his death for he never acted against his conscience. He made no declaration nor confession even as he drank the poison, knowing he would die after having it. Socrates dwelled in harmony with his ‘manasakshi’. He was neither poor nor a lunatic, but he was an inquisitive person, yearning to learn anything new that he had not known earlier. Socrates had no desires, hence, no clutter in his thoughts as well, that’s the reason he was least worried of a trial up above in Heaven. The quote of Dr Raja Rao is also true, but for a small variation. It should be ‘the mentally insane, the poor and the undesirous such as Socrates, were all once the fair people; the rest shall have the opportunity to be fair by a dying declaration.”