Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the passage and answer the ...

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.

Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.

Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?

a)
Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.
b)
Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.
c)
No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.
d)
No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Sta...

Option C is correct as it is given in the passage that confessions made before the police when under custody are inadmissible and it is immaterial if the confessions were made for the crime for which the person is arrested or other alleged crimes. Therefore, option A is incorrect. Option B is incorrect as it is out of the scope of the passage. Option D is incorrect as confessions even for the crime for which a person is arrested are inadmissible if made before the police.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Toshak was arrested for allegedly committing a crime under Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon arrest and torture by the police, and knowing that the punishment for such a crime is not much, he confessed before the superintendent of the police that he committed the crime. The confession was not recorded in either documentary or video format but the superintendent presented himself before the court as a witness of the confession made by Toshak. Will Toshak's confession be admissible in the court?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Sobo was arrested by the Delhi police for allegedly committing affray near Rajiv Chowk. During the police custody, upon torture, Sobo wrote a letter wherein he confessed to committing affray and sent the same letter to an influential IAS officer of the area. Would this evidence be admissible in the court?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Omar was giving a speech in the urban area of Mumbai wherein he was alleged to promote enmity between two religious groups. One of the policemen, Kumar, from the police station where the FIR against Omar was filed happened to be attending that event off-duty. Kumar had a full recording of Omar's speech and police wants to present this as an evidence before the court. Can the prosecution do so?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Anand kills Mahesh and enters in his diary that he has killed Mahesh. He then hides the diary and absconds. During a search operation the police finds the diary and now wishes to produce this as evidence of Anand's confession in the court. Can it be admitted in court?

View answer

Section 154 of the Code requires that every information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence is to be reduced to writing either by the police officer-in-charge or under his direction. The written information shall be read over to and signed by the person giving it. This is known as ‘first information’. The main object of the first information report is to set the criminal law in motion and to set the investigation process in reference to the alleged offence. The FIR is an essential piece of any criminal trial in order to corroborate the evidence. The object of insisting upon the prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the name of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses.The first provision to the section provides any information given by any woman in relation to any specified offences is required to be recorded by a woman police officer. The second proviso lays down that any offence which is specified in the first proviso is alleged to be committed against the person who is either mentally or physically disabled is to be recorded by the police officer at the residence of such person or at any other place convenient to such person in presence of an interpreter or a special educator. It is further provided that all such information shall be videographed and the police officer gets the statement to be recorded by the Magistrate.Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the police officer to investigate a cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. The police officer can investigate the case only where the Court has the jurisdiction over the local areas.Section 155 of the Code deals with the information in case of non-cognizable offences and their investigation. All the information received under this section will be recorded by the police officer in charge and will be entered in such books as may be prescribed by the State Government. According to section 155 (2), a police officer is not permitted to investigate a case relating to the non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate who has the power to try such cases. Moreover, no police officer has the power to arrest any person in the non-cognizable offence unless he has the warrant to arrest. Further, as per section 155 (4) if any case involves 2 or more offences and among all, if one is the cognizable offence, the entire case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case.Q. If the victim is deaf and dumb, then which of the following statements regarding the recording of the information is correct?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused while they were in police custody. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building and formally arrested the next day. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Trial Court had held that these video tapes can also be used as corroborative evidence. This view was upheld by the High Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence., the bench observed. The court also referred to a recent judgment Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka in which similar observations were made.Q. Lakhan, a notorious goon of Bihar, was arrested for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust. During the police custody, he did not confess to criminal breach of trust but did confess to all of his previous crimes. The police videographed his evidence. Would this be admissible in the court in the present case?a)Yes, as he admitted all his previous crimes other than the one for which he was arrested.b)Yes, as he is a notorious goon of the state and there would be several witnesses against him.c)No, as he has made those confessions before the police under police custody.d)No, as only the confessions for the crime for which an accused is arrested are admissible.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam