send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
As per the Privy Council, a statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C.:
can never be used as substantive evidence of the facts stated
can be used to challenge evidence given in Court by the person who made the statement (s. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act)
either (A) or (B)
both (A) and (B)
Let’s break this down:
- Option 1: Says a statement under Section 164 CrPC can never be used as substantive evidence— that’s correct. Such statements, like confessions or witness statements before a magistrate, are not substantive; they're only previous statements.
- Option 2: They're useful for challenging or supporting evidence the person gives later in court, under Section 157 of the Evidence Act (which covers corroboration)— that’s also correct.
- Option 3: This just says one or the other, but both are true.
- Option 4: Says both (A) and (B) are correct.
The correct answer is Option 4—both statements are right.
By: Parvesh Mehta ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses