Site navigation

In which Supreme Court decision of 3 June 2020 did the Court explain that a witness’s earlier statement…

In Somasundaram @ Somu v. State, paragraph 71 distinguishes substantive testimony in court from a witness’s earlier statement under section 164. In the scenario discussed,…

Choose your answer

In which Supreme Court decision of 3 June 2020 did the Court explain that a witness’s earlier statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not by itself sustain a conviction when the witness resiled at trial?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

In Somasundaram @ Somu v. State, paragraph 71 distinguishes substantive testimony in court from a witness’s earlier statement under section 164. In the scenario discussed, the earlier statement alone could not sustain a conviction when the witness resiled at trial and no other evidence supported guilt.

Option feedback

Option A

The quoted formulation appears in Somasundaram @ Somu v. State, not in this listed attribution.

Option B

The passage described is paragraph 71 of Somasundaram @ Somu v. State.

Option C

Paragraph 71 of this judgment gives the stated rule for a witness who resiles at trial.

Option D

The court-authored passage in the question is from Somasundaram @ Somu v. State.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic