Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act: The Double Edged Sword
evidence mh_cet_law advanced concept_confusionDude, I'm still reeling from trying to grasp Section 29. It says that if a person is competent to testify, then their disability (mental or physical) to understand, believe, or recollect is no reason for excluding his testimony, whereas the converse is also true: if a person is not competent to testify, then their understanding, belief, or recollection is irrelevant. Isn't it essentially stating that if a guy's mentally challenged, his 'understanding, belief or recollection' isn't admissible in court, but if he's competent, it doesn't matter if he's mentally ill or not? Kya hai yaar?
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Bhai, don't worry, section 29 is actually quite straightforward. It's all about admissibility of dying declarations. You just need to understand the exceptions - like if the declaration is made in answer to an enquiry or in the presence of a magistrate. And remember, it's a double-edged sword because it can be used in both prosecution and defence cases. Just keep it simple, and you'll nail it!