Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: A spouse is not permitted to put in evidence in any court, any communication during the marriage between the spouses without the consent of the person who made the communication.
Facts: X who is the wife of Y saw her husband (Y) coming out of the neighbour‘s house at 6.00 am in the morning. Y told his wife X that he has murdered the neighbour and handed over the jewellery of that neighbour to his wife.
Options
X is allowed to appear as a witness in court to depose that her husband has told her that he committed a murder
X is not allowed to appear as a witness at all in any court
X is not allowed to appear as a witness to depose what was told by the husband to her, however, she can depose what she saw
X is an independent woman and she can do whatever she wants
Advertisements
Solution
X is not allowed to appear as a witness to depose what was told by the husband to her, however, she can depose what she saw
Explanation:
According to the principle, a spouse is prevented from stating the communication between her and her husband without his consent. However, she is not prevented from stating what she saw.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
On May 14, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a private agency for creating a National Database of Sexual Offenders for India. The said RFP states that the purpose of establishing the database of sex offenders is to help in the early detection and prevention of crime against women, arrests of persons accused of criminal offences and to keep a watch on habitual offenders. Media reports suggest that the public will have access to the details regarding convicted sex offenders and law enforcement officials will have access to data about persons on trial for sexual offences. This registry seems to be one more knee-jerk and populist reaction to the problem of sexual violence against women and children in India.
The ministry seems to have launched this initiative without analysing the evidence on the limited efficacy of such registries in other jurisdictions in reducing rates of repeat offending and without examining its appropriateness in the Indian context. Various states in the US have had such publicly accessible registries for around 28 years and multiple studies have shown that they have limited public safety benefits and significant social costs. Sex offender registries are predicated on the assumption that convicted sex offenders have a high likelihood of committing offences after serving their sentences. This assumption is not borne out by data. In India, the percentage of recidivism among arrested persons according to data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for 2016 is only 6.4%.
The registry is being proposed in response to widely-reported horrific incidents of rape. The logic seems to be that if the police have a list of offenders living in the area, investigation becomes simpler and people, especially parents, can be more vigilant if they are aware of offenders living around them. However in India, as per the NCRB data for 2016, in 94.6% of reported cases of rape against women and children, the perpetrator is known to the victim. Such a registry offers little protection from such offenders. In fact, the fear of the offender being included in the registry may exacerbate the problem of underreporting by making people apprehensive about reporting sexual violence involving family members and acquaintances.
Once the general public has unfettered access to data about sex offenders online, it can open a Pandora's Box. The fears of offenders being ostracised and vilified become very real. Among a host of foreseeable problems, they will find it particularly tough to find employment or housing. India has already witnessed cases of lynchings of people suspected to be child kidnappers. It is not paranoid to expect the public reaction to convicted offenders to be much worse. Once offenders are pushed into the margins, their access to treatment, supervision and support systems becomes diminished, which may be quite counterproductive. If the state imposes restrictions on where such offenders can live, the housing crisis they will face will be exacerbated. They may become homeless or be compelled to live in areas far from home where they may face less scrutiny. The stigma and ostracisation that such offenders will face will invariably extend to their families. Studies in the US have shown that a combination of social ostracisation, lack of psychiatric support and the inability to find a job or housing, can even increase chances of recidivism; thus, defeating the very purpose of the registry. In such circumstances, registration in such a database can turn into a 'scarlet letter' like badge of shame that can punish offenders much beyond their sentences and make their rehabilitation and reintegration into society next to impossible.
As per the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data from 2015-2016, we know that 85% of cases of sexual violence against women, which excludes cases of marital rape and assault, go unreported. Such a registry does not begin to address this problem.
Before implementing this registry, the Ministry of Home Affairs must create a research base on recidivism among sex offenders and the risk factors and hold a much broader public debate on the need for the registry. This is not to say that sexual offences are not an urgent problem. In the Indian context, the focus needs to be shifted to tackling barriers to reporting, training law enforcement officials and providing support to survivors rather than this ill-conceived registry.
Which of the following focuses on the mistake of the Home Ministry which issued the RFP?
Which of the following is an assumption on which the Sex offender registries are predicated?
Principle: A man is guilty of not only for what he actually does but also for the consequences of his doing.
Facts: A wanted to kill the animal of B. He saw B standing with his animal and fired a gunshot at the animal. The gunshot killed B.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Ram’s father and Rizvi were enemies. One day at the market Rizvi attacked Ram's father with a lathi. Ram’s father suffered a simple injury on his head. On seeing this Ram got hold of a gun and shot Rizvi in the head, in order to protect his father. The police arrested Ram and charged him with culpable homicide.
Principle:
- The law recognizes an individual’s right to defend himself and his family and his property against any unlawful acts.
- The person defending himself should not do more harm than is necessary, that is to say, that the force used to defend should be proportionate to the force used by the aggressor.
Sexual intercourse by a man with a woman even with her consent is rape if she is below the age of –
Animal denotes
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this code are
A participant in commission of crime is popularly known as
X, a shopkeeper, leaves a sealed 5 kilogram bag of a branded wheat flour at the door of Y with a note you will like this quality wheat flour and pay Rupees 100 for this bag' without being asked to do so. Y on coming back collects the bag from his door, opens the seal of the bag, and uses a quarter of kilograms for making chapattis (unleavened bread). But next day returns the bag. Is he bound to pay for the bag? He is
Principle: Theft is robbery if in order to committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or fear of instant death or instant hurt.
A entered B's house and was taking away her wallet and leaving the house when he encountered B. He dropped the wallet, but shot her while escaping.
Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defense to a charge in criminal law.
Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Cannaught Place in Delhi while Y's car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?
