Section 132 Contradiction Woes
evidence clat_pg beginner concept_confusionI've been re-reading the Evidence Act and I'm stuck on Section 132. It says that a witness can't be compelled to answer questions that might expose them to criminal charges or penalty. But then Section 139 allows the judge to decide if a witness is bound to answer a question. Doesn't that kinda contradict Section 132? I mean, if a witness can be forced to answer under Section 139, then what's the point of Section 132? Am I missing something or is it just me? I've read through the judgments, but I still can't seem to wrap my head around it. Anyone else struggling with this?
3 Comments
Arre, maine bhi is section ka jhundha dekha hai. Koi idea nahin kya aap logon ne, ye 132 ke under IPC 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) ke against hai, lekin yeh dono Section 187 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) ka case bhi banta hai. Kya hum bata sakte hain, aap log ka kya vichaar hai?
Bhai, I think you're overlooking the nuances of Section 132. It's a tricky one, but it's not a contradiction. Read the sub-clauses carefully. IPC 132 actually presumes guilty until proven otherwise, which is in line with natural justice. It's a tough law, not a contradiction. We should focus on understanding rather than debating its validity.