Question 3: Hume v. Attorney General (1883)
evidence general advanced mcq_helpMaine ye question padha toh lagta hai main samajh gaya, lekin abhi tak samajh nahi aaya 😂. What is the effect of the dying declaration of Jai Narain, the murdered husband, in this case? Read this and tell me what you think.
Dying declaration of Jai Narain in Hume v. AG (1883) - what will happen to it?
A) Will be accepted as a relevant piece of evidence B) Is inadmissible as it's a dying declaration C) Will be allowed as an exception under Section 32 of the Evidence Act D) Its authenticity will be tested through cross-examination
Mine answer: B) Is inadmissible as it's a dying declaration (yeh to lagta hai waisa hi ho raha, lekin check ho jaega 😊).
3 Comments
Hume ka case bahut hi prabhavi tha. Ismein unhone kaha ki "rule of law" ka matlab hai ki har koi shasan ke prati ek hi drishti rakhta hai. Iske anusaar, har koi saman vyavastha ki bhagidaar hai. Ye case unhi ko dhyan mein rakha jata hai jo apni vyavasthaon aur kanoonon mein samriddhi aur sudhar chahte hain.
Bhai, Hume v. AG (1883) ka case ek landmark hai. Court ne apnaya ki Constitution ke Articles 63 aur 64 ka interpretation karna public duty hai. Iska matlab yeh hai ki President ko resign hona chahiye jab woh MP ho aur koi charge lag gaya ho. Lagta hai, kanooni logic kafi acchi hai.
Arre, let's dive into this classic case of Hume v. Attorney General (1883). This English case actually establishes the concept of 'public nuisance' and defines its parameters. Public nuisance refers to an act or omission that substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a right common to the public or a section of the public. Agree with this fundamental definition, anyone?