Section 59 of Evidence Act: The Witness's Worst Nightmare
evidence clat_ug advanced concept_confusionI'm still confused about Section 59 of the Evidence Act, specifically the part where it says that if a witness makes a statement inconsistent with one made by them in their examination-in-chief, then the witness can be cross-examined on the earlier statement. Kya yeh sach much? I thought Article 20(3) of the Constitution says a witness can't be compelled to answer any question if the answer would self-incriminate them. But Section 59 basically says if the witness says something, then they can be questioned on that something even if it incriminates them? It's like the plot of PK, but instead of a godman's wrongdoings, it's a witness's inconsistent statements. I'm still trying to get my head around this. Help, is it just me or am I missing something?
3 Comments
Yaar, kuch dikhra hai section 59 mein. Yeh kehta hai ki aapko jo bhi witness bataata hai, uske khilaf bhi aapko darr lagta hai. Agar aap us witness ko bata rahe hain ki usne kuch galat kiya hai, to aapko usse prove karna hoga. Yeh ek tricky situation hai, lekin yeh section aapko ismein madad karega.
Adi, Section 59 of Evidence Act hai jo Witness ko khatarnaak ban sakta hai. Ye Section Witness ko dekhne mein shak ke liye aavashyak hai, jiske kaaran Witness ke statements par koi bhi shak ho sakta hai. Lekin yeh bhi jaana hai ki yeh Section Witness ki protection ke liye bhi hai, jisse inki statements pureh aur sachi rahein.
Ye section 59 khatarnaak hai, bhai! It says ki if witness ko ek jaankari ko yeh pata hai ki iska yeh proof ek doosre witness ke khilaf use ban sakta hai, to usne proof ke liye court mein khada nahin hua. Isliye, yeh ek witness ko apni zubaan se bachne ke liye ek achha kadam hai, iska use proof banane ki koshish na karni chahiye.