Cyril Ramaphosa’s son, Andile Ramaphosa, has admitted to receiving R2-million from Bosasa. Everyone is aware of it now, and it’s out inside the open. But, now, each person is calling at Cyril to explain it to the USA. We want solutions. Cyril is now anticipated to do an entire press launch on it.
Bongani and Mags are not speaking Cyril Ramaphosa, Bosasa, or maybe politics in any respect, but rather they want to invite; as a figure, at what factor does your responsibility give up?
Even while your children are adults, and they homicide someone, for example, we robotically look at the dad and mom and expect them to say something.
Should we assume dad and mom accept responsibility whilst their youngsters ruin the regulation? Have any of your children ever broken the regulation?
What takes place if one among your children smashes the regulation? Is it as much as you to explain it to the sector?
What caused me to jot down this Article is a remark made in a recent judgment dated 25-02-2019 rendered by way of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 2014 (Ali K.B. V. State of Kerala 2019 (1) KHC 898).
2. The case before the High Court became a murder case. They found out. Judges were thinking about the testimony of PW2, the only eye witness inside the case, and who is none aside from the daughter of the individual that was murdered. This witness became elderly eleven years while the prevalence passed off in the year 2008. For the duration of the level of research, her statement under Section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) turned into recorded by a Magistrate who did not administer the oath to the woman who turned into elderly most effective eleven years then. She turned into aged 18 years when she gave evidence before the Trial Court.
Dealing with the defense competition that seeing that no oath changed into administered with the aid of the Magistrate to the kid witness, her testimony earlier than Court lacks credence, the Division Bench rightly determined that because of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, 1969 management of oath was now not vital in the case of a infant underneath 12 years of age if the Court changed into of the opinion that though the kid knows the duty of speakme the truth, he or she does no longer apprehend the nature of oath or confirmation. The judges also adverted to Rule 55 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982, obliging the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry to determine the testimonial competence of a witness below a disability.
During such preliminary inquiry, the exam of the kid witness is known as a voir dire exam that’s a French word because of this “to talk the reality.” The Judges also referred to Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969, which inter alia shows that omission to take an oath or any irregularity in taking the oath will now not invalidate either the court cases or the proof. The Judges were then discussing the probative value of an assertion below Section 164 Cr.P.C. This is what the Division Bench has discovered:-
“19. It is settled law that even a declaration recorded by the Magistrate in terms of Section 164(five) can handiest be used to cause contradiction. The declaration recorded under Section 164(5) can’t have any validity as such and cannot be treated as evidence before a Court. It has the same traits of a declaration recorded with the aid of the Police under Section 161. It may be utilized simplest for a reason provided inside the proviso to Section 162 r/w Section a hundred forty-five of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, no prejudice might be brought about to the accused even if there may be any irregularity in recording the statement underneath Section 164 via the found out Magistrate. In the case on hand, the argument is about the declaration is given utilizing PW2, an infant witness to the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.”
3. I am afraid that the above statement does no longer reflect the genuine prison position—the remark that an assertion recorded underneath Section 164(5) Cr. P.C is similar to a declaration recorded with the aid of the Police underneath Section 161 Cr. P.C.. It can be used simplest for the reason of contradiction as furnished under the proviso to Section 162 Cr.P.C. Study with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, is, with due recognition, a misguided assertion of the regulation as might be shown in the course of this Article. Such an announcement underneath Section 164 Cr.P.C. May is used no longer handiest for contradicting the maker underneath Section one hundred forty-five of the Evidence Act, however, additionally for corroborating his declaration by recourse to Section 157 of the Evidence Act.
The proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. Additionally can’t have any utility for eliciting a contradiction within the statement recorded below Section 164 Cr.P.C. One of these statements is one recorded utilizing a Magistrate and not by way of a Police officer. Similarly, the also statement within the extracted part of the reported verdict that a declaration recorded beneath Section 164(five) Cr.P.C. Can’t have any validity as such and can not be dealt with as evidence before the Court, might not additionally be absolutely correct within the wake of the legislative intervention inside the form of insertion of clause(b) to sub-phase (5A) of Section 164 Cr.P.C.
With impact from 03-02-2013. As in line with the stated clause(b), the statement recorded underneath clause(a) of sub-phase (5A) of someone who is temporarily or completely mentally or bodily disabled may be handled as examination-in-chief as furnished beneath Section 137 of the Evidence Act for the duration of the trial of the case. Thus, as a minimum for the aforesaid limited cause, the 164 announcements of a person can be handled as proof. Since I actually have also stumble upon other judicial verdicts, either misconstruing or not nicely construing the sweep and amplitude of Section 164 Cr.P.C., I suggest coping with the problem in a few intensity.