All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Principle: I. The right to be silent is an e... Start Learning for Free
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.
Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?
  • a)
    Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.
  • b)
    Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.
  • c)
    No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.
  • d)
    No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Principle: I. The right to be silent is an essential component of the...
The right to remain silent subsists as long as the accused does not testify in the court. In this case, Mr. Thakur was already brought to stand and questioned for attacking his client. Therefore, he has waived his right to remain silent.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?

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?

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?

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Q.The discrimination here is based on her caste. Therefore, her fundamental right in this regard has been violated.Have the fundamental rights of Nirmala been violated in this instance?

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Q.Have the fundamental rights of Sitara been violated?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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.Q. Can Mr. Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?a)Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.b)Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.c)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.d)No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup