Scribd
Upload
75 views2 pages

Abstarct Interpretation of Statute Nandini Sathpathey V. P.L Dani Breif Outline

This document summarizes the Nandini Satpathy vs P.L. Dani case, which discussed issues related to criminal procedure in India. Specifically, it addressed three issues: [1] the principle of self-incrimination under Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [2] whether Section 161(2) applies only to witnesses or also accused persons, and [3] whether there is a contradiction between Section 161(2) and Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code. The case also emphasized the importance of legal aid for witnesses. It found that Section 161(2) of the CrPC and Section 179 of the IPC do not conflict. While an important precedent, the judgment

Uploaded by

Piyush Nikam Mishra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views2 pages

Abstarct Interpretation of Statute Nandini Sathpathey V. P.L Dani Breif Outline

This document summarizes the Nandini Satpathy vs P.L. Dani case, which discussed issues related to criminal procedure in India. Specifically, it addressed three issues: [1] the principle of self-incrimination under Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [2] whether Section 161(2) applies only to witnesses or also accused persons, and [3] whether there is a contradiction between Section 161(2) and Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code. The case also emphasized the importance of legal aid for witnesses. It found that Section 161(2) of the CrPC and Section 179 of the IPC do not conflict. While an important precedent, the judgment

Uploaded by

Piyush Nikam Mishra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ABSTARCT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

NANDINI SATHPATHEY v. P.L DANI

BREIF OUTLINE

The Nandini Satpathy case is essentially a constitutional law case wherein certain issues
pertaining to Criminal Procedure have been discussed. Justice Krishna Iyer, who gave the
majority judgment, has discussed ten issues, of which three were regarding Criminal
Procedure. In this project these issues regarding CrPC shall be discussed in light of the
judgment and hypothetical situations. The primary issue discussed was regarding the
principle laid down by section 161(2) of CrPC, and to what extent might a person be justified
in not answering a question on the ground that it is self-incriminatory in nature. Second issue
discussed is whether section 161(2) applies only to a witness or does it also extend to include
an accused person, who can claim immunity under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. And
finally the last issue is whether there is a contradiction between section 161(2) of CrPC and
section 179 of the IPC. The case also stressed a lot on the importance of legal aid, by stating
that a witness can have his lawyer present with him during examination, so as to consult
him/her. And finally this case showed how section161 (2) of the CrPC and 179 of the IPC
do not clash with each other but are in fact in consonance. This judgment is considered to be
good in law, although in regards to the main principle, it should ideally not allow right
against self-incrimination to extend to tendency to be incriminated for a different matter.
But nevertheless this case to this day acts as one of the most cited and important cases for
right against self-incrimination because of its well-found and sound principles developed.

HYPOTHESIS

To say on the one hand that an administrative proceeding is a mere fact-finding mechanism
and therefore by implication has no significant impact on the person involved, while on the
other hand arguing that to include such a right would hamper the functioning of the
administrative body, and would hence have a significant impact on public interest is
tantamount to unquestioning assumption of a paradoxical premise and arguing thence
onwards.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How did the right against self incrimination evolve in common law?

To what extent has this right been expressed in Indian constitution?

What are the changes that have been suggested by the mallimath commission in this regard?

Is it viable and prudent to make these changes?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research on this project will be confined and limited to primary & secondary sources.

NAME- PIYUSH KUMAR MISHRA

REG NO- 2014078

SEMESTER- V

You might also like