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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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. 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?a)Yes, as the confession is in a documentary format and not in a video format.b)No, as Sobo was compelled to be a witness against himself.c)No, as the statement was recoded while he was under the custody.d)Both B and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.