Which one of the following regarding witnesses under the Indian Eviden

Which one of the following regarding witnesses under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”An accomplice cannot be a witness.” option2=”Communication between lawyer and client is privileged, hence cannot be admitted as evidence.” option3=”Competency of witness shall be decided by Court.” option4=”A dumb witness may give his/her witness only in writing which may amount to oral witness.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A) An accomplice cannot be a witness.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that “An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” Therefore, an accomplice *can* be a witness.

While Section 133 states that an accomplice is a competent witness, Section 114, Illustration (b) suggests that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars. This highlights that while their evidence is admissible, courts typically treat it with caution and seek corroboration, but they are nonetheless competent to testify. Options B, C, and D correctly reflect provisions of the Indian Evidence Act regarding privileged communications (Sections 126-129), competency of witnesses (Section 118), and evidence by dumb witnesses (Section 119), respectively.

More similar MCQ questions for Exam preparation:-