Section 29 Evidence Act - A Hidden Pitfall
evidence cuet_pg intermediate trick_questionOk ok, guys, be careful with this one. Question asked is - if A, the accused, made a statement to B, a police officer, under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, i.e., in the course of an investigation, and then this confession was obtained by inducement offered by C, another police officer. Now here's the trap - the question asks if Section 29 of the Evidence Act can be invoked to exclude A's confession. Most people, when they first read this, think, "Oh, Section 29 says if a statement was obtained by inducement, then it can be excluded." But they forget that under Section 32, confession made under an investigation is itself specifically covered by an exception under the Evidence Act, that of free and voluntary confession.
2 Comments
Yaar, I respectfully disagree with this article. Section 29 Evidence Act isn't a hidden pitfall, it's a deliberate rule to prevent witnesses from being led astray. Bilkul, the idea is to prevent cross-examination from being influenced by leading questions. Sab kuch clear hai, it's a pro-rule for fair trials, not a hidden trap. Maybe the article was written with a biased perspective, yaar?
Bhai/Sister, don't worry, Section 29 Evidence Act koi baap ka laal nikla hai, but yeh toh aapko thoda sa confuse kar sakta hai. Aapko thoda dhyan dena hai, yeh section jo bhi witness ko accept karta hai, use bhi aapko prove karni padegi ki voh witness correct hai ya nahi.