In this article, I have tried to trace the important improvements in the law regarding declaration of death. Declaration of death is defined in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 32 provides an exception to the principle of excluding hearsay evidence. The underlying principle is that a person who has direct knowledge of the facts of the case but who, due to death, disability, etc., is unable to appear in court, another person must then transmit this knowledge given by the person. who is about to die in court, the person who shared the knowledge of that person will be considered the best evidence. So, necessity and convenience are the underlying motives. Proof of death, disability, etc. of a person will have to be presented first for the evidence to be relevant under section 32. Where a statement is admitted under one of the eight clauses of section 32, it is 'substantial evidence and must be considered with other evidence. Section 32(1) incorporates the English law principle relating to what are commonly known as dying decelerations. A declaration of death means the declaration of a person who died by homicide or suicide explaining the cause or circumstances of their death. As the person is deceased, their statement in court would be hearsay, which is excluded because the party it is used against has no opportunity to cross-examine the original source and is not made under oath . Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule. The three main reasons why dying decelerations are admitted are:1. Death of the declarant2. Necessity (evidence available in the circumstances): the victim is usually the only eyewitness to...... middle of paper ...... but does not answer the final formal question as to what she wanted more say, the statement can be reliable. This was seen in the case of Kusa v. State of Orissa. ANALYSISA's dying declaration should not be dismissed because it lacks details or suffers from minor inconsistencies. Just because it is a brief statement, it should not be released. Brevity indeed guarantees the truthfulness and reliability of the statement.6. DECLARIANT MUST BE COMPETENT AS A WITNESS – it is necessary for the relevance of a death declaration that the declarant, had he lived, would have been a competent witness. Thus, in a prosecution for the murder of a 4-year-old child, it was proposed to put into evidence, as a dying declaration, what the child had said shortly before his death. The statement was deemed inadmissible. Thus, a declaration of the death of a child is inadmissible.