Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri
Latin: No one at the point of death is presumed to lie.
A person about to die is presumed not to lie. The maxim is the rationale for admitting dying declarations, now under Section 26(a) of the BSA.
Explained
Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri means that no one at the point of death is presumed to lie; it is often rendered as a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It supplies the rationale for admitting a dying declaration, a statement by a person who has since died about the cause of his death, as an exception to the rule against hearsay. The solemnity of approaching death is treated as a substitute for the oath and cross-examination.
The rule is now in Section 26(a) of the BSA (earlier Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act). A statement, written or verbal, made by a person who is dead, as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, is relevant in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. The provision is wider than the English rule in two ways: the statement is relevant whether or not the maker was under expectation of death when he made it, and it is relevant whatever the nature of the proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the cause of death is in question.
The principles on weight are settled. A dying declaration can by itself form the basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary, and there is no rule of law requiring corroboration, as the Supreme Court held in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1957). The court must, however, be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind, that the statement was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination, and that it was consistent. A declaration recorded by a Magistrate is generally given greater assurance, but no particular form or recorder is required. Where there are several declarations, the court examines whether they are consistent.
Examiners ask for the meaning of the maxim, the location of the rule in the BSA, and whether expectation of death is required (it is not).
What the law says
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, namely:—
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
Section 26(a): statement as to cause of death is relevant
Earlier law: IEA 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.
Earlier law: Section 32, Evidence Act
For the exam
- Meaning: no one at the point of death is presumed to lie.
- Basis of dying declarations: Section 26(a) BSA (earlier Section 32(1) Evidence Act).
- Expectation of death is not required in Indian law.
- Applies in civil and criminal proceedings where the cause of death is in question.
- Can alone sustain conviction if true and voluntary; corroboration is not a rule of law.
1 question in the Law Maker question bank uses this maxim. Practise Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam questions
Judgments
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1957)The Court held that no absolute rule of law or prudence requires a dying declaration to be corroborated before it can found a conviction, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction and death sentence on three consistent dying declarations.
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002)A dying declaration recorded by a magistrate satisfied of the declarant's fitness can be acted upon without a doctor's certificate of fitness, if the court holds it voluntary and truthful; Paparambaka Rosamma was held not correctly decided.
Related terms
- EvidenceUnder Section 2(1)(e) of the BSA, statements of witnesses before the Court, including those given electronically (oral evidence), and documents, including digital records, produced for its inspection (documentary evidence).
- FactAnything, state of things or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses, and any mental condition of which a person is conscious (Section 2(1)(f) of the BSA).
- Res gestaeFacts, including statements, so connected with a fact in issue or relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether at the same time and place or not (Section 4, BSA).
- Corpus delictiThe substance of an offence: proof that the crime charged was in fact committed by someone. In homicide it is often equated with the dead body, but its recovery is not essential to a conviction.
- Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibusFalse in one thing, false in everything. In India it is not a rule of law; at most it is a rule of caution, and courts separate the true part of testimony from the false.
Further reading
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.