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
Find out the correct statements:-
(i) In deciding whether a particular confession attracts the frown of section 24, Evidence Act, the question has to be considered from the point of view of the confession accused as to how the inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority would operate in his mind.
(ii) Section 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act form a trio containing safeguards against accused persons being coerced or induced to confess guilt.
(iii) Section 27 of the Evidence Act, partially removes the ban placed on the reception of confessional statements under section 26 of the Evidence Act. But the removal of the
ban is not of such an extent as to absolutely undo the section 26 of the Act.
(iv) The confession of an accused is substantive evidence but conviction cannot be solely based on a confession.
(v) The meaning of the word ‘appears’ in section 24, Evidence Act is seems. It imports a lesser degree of improbability than proof. The test of proof is that there is such high
degree of probability that a prudent man would act on assumption that the thing is true. But under section 24 of the Evidence Act, such stringent rule is waived but a lesser degree of assurance is laid down as the criteria. The standard of a prudent man is not completely displaced but the stringent rule of proof is relaxed.
(vi) To exclude a statement as being hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act, the inducement whether it assumes the shape of promise, a threat or mere advice, must relate to the actual charge and be such as is calculated to influence the mind of the accused with respect to his escape from the charge. The inducement must have reference to escape from the charge.
(vii) The mere existence of threat, inducement or promise is not enough, but if in the opinion of the court the said threat etc. shall be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by conferring he would get an advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him, it would exclude the confession.
(i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii)
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii)
(i), (iii), (vi), (vii)
(i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii)
Conviction can be based
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses