Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Right against self-incrimination came into e...

161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”

For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.

Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.

Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question?

a)
No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.
b)
Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.
c)
No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.
d)
Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medie...

Y can choose not to answer because if he did, it means that he did help in hiding the weapon, then there is very reasonable possibility that if he says yes he may be charged for abetment, since the only reason he touched the murder weapon immediately after the murder was probably to hide it.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. What is the tone of the author?

View answer

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle:I. The right to be silent is an essential component of the right against self-incrimination which is a fundamental right of every citizen.II. During the trial, an accused person has the right not to testify by exercising his or her right to remain silent.III. When an accused person does decide to testify, his or her right to remain silent is waived and he can no longer take the defence of self-incrimination in the court.Facts: K R Kejriwal was a brilliant scientist and statistician who was arrested one fateful night by the Noida police department and brought in for questioning for his involvement in the mafia responsible for the smuggling of arms to Pakistan. In the police custody, the chief inspector Mr. Thakur beat up Mr. Kejriwal repeatedly and threatened to cause him serious bodily harm if he did not confess that he was guilty of the offence of abetment. However, Mr. Kejriwal did not admit to the offence despite numerous attacks and finally passed out in his custodian cell. In the court, the defence attorney for Mr. Kejriwal brought Mr. Thakur to the stand and questioned him for attacking his client. During one of the questions, Mr. Thakur stated that he is no longer interested in answering any further questions and wished to exercise his right to remain silent in court.Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.What is the tone of the author?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognised in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination.161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him. But within the clause itself there is an exception to this that if answering the questions can lead to the incrimination of that person, then he is not bound to answer those questions. In this case, the main principle developed regarding this was that, “even if answering a question has the tendency or probability of incriminating the person, then he/she is not bound to answer it.”For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. This case extensively discussed the principle of self-incrimination. And it was in this case that the Court highlighted as to what qualifies as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ They held that when there is a probability of accusation actual or imminent, after taking all circumstances into account; then the person is not liable to answer the question. But if it appears that there is no possibility of crimination then the person is bound to answer the question. To explain crimination, the Court also discussed the difference between confession and crimination. In case of a confession, it is defined as “the potency to make crime conclusive” whereas crimination on the other hand means that there is “tendency to make guilt probable.” Therefore tendency is the possibility of guilt on the part of the person.Z has murdered X, and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards it. With respect to this incident it is also suspected that Y might have been involved by helping Z to hide the murder weapon. Y is being examined by the Police Officer regarding the incident and the murder weapon by virtue of S 161 of the CrPC. During the examination the Police Officer asked whether Y had touched the murder weapon immediately after the incident occurred. Y chose not to answer this question.Q. Can the court compel him to answer that question? a)No, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.b)Yes, because 161(2) of the CrPC requires that every person being questioned must answer truly the question posed to him.c)No, because to answer or not to answer is a fundamental right and it can’t be violated even by the judiciary.d)Yes, because an affirmative answer to that question can give them the evidence to incriminate him.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam