filmov
tv
Watch - MASTERING THE ART OF PROVING CONTRADICTION AND OMISSION DURING TRIAL
![preview_player](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O46P3QBG2KY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Показать описание
Welcome to ‘Nyay Pathshala’.
In today's session, we embark on a journey into the intricate world of trial strategies, with a particular focus on a crucial aspect of evidence law— Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Section 145 of the Evidence Act is a powerful tool in the hands of lawyers, enabling them to dissect inconsistencies and also unveil the truth.
Let us examine what is contradiction and when can an omission amount to a contradiction and how it can be proved during the trial.
Contradiction: Meaning and Purpose
The dictionary defines “contradiction” as the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else what is said earlier.
The word contradiction is not defined under the Evidence Act or under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In case of a witness testifies before the court that a certain fact is existed without stating same before police; it is a case of conflict between the testimony before the court and statement made before the police. This is a contradiction. Therefore, statement before the police can be used to contradict his testimony before the court.
In trials, while cross examination a contradiction happens when a witness under oath says something that is opposite or very different in the meaning or other wise to what is mentioned in the previous statement recorded.
The dictionary defines “omission” as something that has been left out or excluded.
In trials, while cross examination, an omission takes place when the witness purposely or otherwise misses out/omits any fact or statement he has made in his/her statement recorded earlier.
So, omissions and contradictions relate to previous statement made by a witness (most commonly u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973).
Omission means missing to state something from the earlier statement.
Causes, and more particularly, effects of such 'something missing (omissions)' and 'something different (contradictions)' have to be dealt with by the Trial Judge, while weighing and appreciating the testimonies of witnesses.
But a diminutive reference is perceived under Section 155 of the Evidence Act.
#contradiction #omission #Section155 #evidence #trial #advocate #lawyer #law #court #supremecourt #justice #police #india
In today's session, we embark on a journey into the intricate world of trial strategies, with a particular focus on a crucial aspect of evidence law— Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Section 145 of the Evidence Act is a powerful tool in the hands of lawyers, enabling them to dissect inconsistencies and also unveil the truth.
Let us examine what is contradiction and when can an omission amount to a contradiction and how it can be proved during the trial.
Contradiction: Meaning and Purpose
The dictionary defines “contradiction” as the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else what is said earlier.
The word contradiction is not defined under the Evidence Act or under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In case of a witness testifies before the court that a certain fact is existed without stating same before police; it is a case of conflict between the testimony before the court and statement made before the police. This is a contradiction. Therefore, statement before the police can be used to contradict his testimony before the court.
In trials, while cross examination a contradiction happens when a witness under oath says something that is opposite or very different in the meaning or other wise to what is mentioned in the previous statement recorded.
The dictionary defines “omission” as something that has been left out or excluded.
In trials, while cross examination, an omission takes place when the witness purposely or otherwise misses out/omits any fact or statement he has made in his/her statement recorded earlier.
So, omissions and contradictions relate to previous statement made by a witness (most commonly u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973).
Omission means missing to state something from the earlier statement.
Causes, and more particularly, effects of such 'something missing (omissions)' and 'something different (contradictions)' have to be dealt with by the Trial Judge, while weighing and appreciating the testimonies of witnesses.
But a diminutive reference is perceived under Section 155 of the Evidence Act.
#contradiction #omission #Section155 #evidence #trial #advocate #lawyer #law #court #supremecourt #justice #police #india