CHAPTER 4
CONCEPT OF HOSTILE WITNESS UNDER INDIAN LAWS
The term ‘Hostile witnesses’ has not been defined in any Indian laws be it Indian Evidence Act,1872 or Court of Criminal Proceedure,1973 or Indian Penal Code,1860 any other law. The term ‘hostile witness’ or ’adverse witnesses’ and ‘unfavourable witness’ has been derived from English laws. Hostile witness is one of the ignored concepts in domestic laws. In India, it is entirely in the discretion of the Court to decide on what basis a witness is to be declared as ‘Hostile’. However, there are some provisions under domestic legislations that indirectly deals with the concept of hostile witness.
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Law of Evidence is nothing but a system of rules and principle which assist the court to ascertain the fact in the judicial proceedings. Generally, the party is prohibited from asking of leading question to its own witness under section 142 of Evidence Act because there is presumption that a witness is always biased towards the party calling him. However, the rule is relaxed because of evolution of concept of hostile witnesses in India and the court may permit the party to cross examine his own witness. Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 confers discretionary power on the Court to permit the party who
…show more content…
Laloo Prasad , observed that it is open to the party who called the witness to seek permission from the Court as envisaged in section 154 of the Evidence Act at any stage of the examination and it is a discretion vested with the Court whether to grant permission or not. It was further observed that normally when the public prosecutor requested for the permission to put cross-questions to a witness called by him the Court used to called it. It was further pointed out that if the public prosecutor had sought permission at the end of chief examination itself the Court would have no good reason for declining the permission sought
Imagine an individual, getting ready for their slumber. Now imagine an intruder breaking into there window with the intention to shoot anyone in its way. Recall that the homeowner is unable to legally defend himself and must retreat from the intruder. This scenario can be possible in all 50 states, but only Seventeen states do not give people the right to legally defend themselves, even if confronted with a person holding a weapon. This means a innocent person attempting to defend their family or himself would wrongly get accused if the intruder got injured.
By ignoring the clarification of the relationship between the accused and the witness, the focus is lost on figuring out if the accused did the actions in question. Instead of figuring out whether the accused was the person the witness saw, the focus of the questioning turns to examine whether the witness is reliable. This is both a positive and a negative action. The Crown prosecutor will be able to place doubt on the credibility of the witness which can influence the jury’s decision. However, this is can affect the defence as it can lead to an innocent person being charged for a crime that he did not commit.
Being an archeologist in Aurora also means that I must be familiar with laws and regulations of findings. The law protects Native American skeletons and other purposes, such as artifacts. Legal authorities in federal and state government divisions protect the remains of Native American and artifacts. According to attorney Benderson, Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA), are part of an organization that is in control, thus, the state is reliable for state-owned and controlled lands, also to those that are locally owned (USAO Department of Justice 3).
The Holocaust is one of the world's greatest tragedies to ever occur in the existence of all of mankind. Millions of Jews, killed, attacked, assaulted and left to fight a war they could not win by themselves. All while this was happening, millions of bystanders just watched and watched like the crowd at a football game. These bystanders had a chance at stopping the genocide of a whole religion, yet they didn't, why? The fear of being the spark rather than the flame that follows.
Introduction: During the Holocaust, many people suffered from the despicable actions of others. These actions were influenced by hatred, intolerance, and anti-semitic views of people. The result of such actions were the deaths of millions during the Holocaust, a devastating genocide aimed to eliminate Jews. In this tragic event, people, both initiators and bystanders, played major roles that allowed the Holocaust to continue. Bystanders during this dreadful disaster did not stand up against the Nazis and their collaborators.
Survivor 's Guilt Imagine surviving the Holocaust while millions of other people have perished. Dying people from left to right. You honestly wanted to help them, however you could not. Would you feel the guilt that you were alive while the person next to you did not? Even if you had the chance, would you even have saved them?
Name here Exclusionary rule University name Professor name Course name and section 2 July 2016 Abstract The legal system is one of the least understood concepts in the modern world. One issue today is the role of the exclusionary rule. This paper will define the exclusionary rule in two key contexts: the confession system and the role of the fourth amendment in evidence gathering.
The police may ask you to make a statement. You will be questioned and threatened by the police which is witness intimidation. The police are only intimidating the witness because they want to make sure they get criminal off the streets, and the investigation is carried out. By providing accurate information to the police, they will be able to bring the criminal in, question him and he may possibly get convicted the same day. Many cases need a key witness so that the police job is easier.
“Testimony need not be under oath and hearsay is admissible,” (Boston, pp. 350,
Throughout the years, many presidents have committed crimes, and gotten away with it. Presidents breaking the law is controversial because in Article. II. Section. 3.
In 1976 Nova was formed and it is the oldest national victim assistance organization and is largely well known within the U.S. This organization is a private, charitable and non- profit organization. Its main function is to have compassion with the victims and be respectful to one another. The Victims’ Rights fought hard to get these rights to become a law. One of the biggest turn around was when President Clinton spoke about it in his speech on June 25th, 1996.
First, the factor that leading innocent people be charged is flawed eyewitness identification. Eyewitness is one of principal evidences that policies are looking because someone has knowledge about the crime. A study of contributing causes of wrongful convictions show us that 72% are eyewitness because of misidentification ( The causes of wrongful conviction, 1). This study demonstrated that eyewitness is the highest in wrongful convictions. For example, in the documentary Mr Stephens was the eyewitness which, it is the strong evidence that Detective Williams used against Butler.
Intolerable Acts The Intolerable Acts can be viewed as one of the first sparks to the flaming fire of America claiming Independence. The Intolerable Acts, also called the Coercive Acts, were a series of laws passed in 1774 in order to punish the colonies for defying their rule. Four out of five of the Intolerable Acts were directed towards Massachusetts directly and the other was directed at Quebec. All of the Acts were supposed to stop the colonies from defying England’s Rule and show the colonies that England was still in charge.
At a glance, the judicial system appears to have been set up to make sure that every one is punished fairly and equally no matter what your race is, your gender or your beliefs. But, once you begin to delve into the judicial systems background and trends you will begin to notice things that continuously happen to specific groups of people. You will begin to see that clearly some races are treated way different than other races which is not how the judicial system should be set up. Racism in the judicial system has been around since the beginning of the judicial system´s existence. It is a prime example of out many that showcase how the social justice of minorities are infringed upon.
In the recent news, everyone’s heard of the rise in hate crime. Most hate crime is “motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence,” (Dictionary.com). Hate crimes have spanned across the country and impact thousands of lives each year. The FBI started investigating hate crimes at the turn of the 20th century. The FBI define hate crime as, “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” (FBI).