Headline
The Supreme Court of India clarifies limits of immunity of witness u/s 132 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India states that a witness cannot claim immunity who incriminates themselves under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act if there is additional evidence showing their involvement in a crime. This addressed the limits of protection for witnesses who are also facing potential prosecution.( Currently its under Section 137 of BSA)
Key Facts
- Case Name: Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr.
- Name of Judges: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Prasanna B Varale
- The appellant, initially a witness, was summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) dependent upon the testimony from another witness and additional evidence, not merely his pre-summoning statement.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court held that Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act gives immunity from self-incriminating statements only, but not from prosecution if other important evidence exists.
Impact
This ruling of the Supreme Court shed light on that witnesses cannot misuse immunity sections to avoid prosecution when there is different incriminating material available against them.
Why It Matters
It showcases the significance of upholding justice by making sure that immunity provisions are not exploited to cover potential offenders from prosecution.
Source:
