EMPEROR Vs. KAZI DAWOOD KAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Gupte tenders the statement on oath of the accused Kazi Dawood Kazi made before the witness, Mr. B.N. Athavle, as Coroner, at the inquest held by him on the body of Rahimatbi, wife of the accused.

(2.) Mr. Velinker for the accused objected to the statement being admitted in evidence on the ground that the proceedings before the Coroner were not criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and that Section 132 therefore did not apply, and that the general rule in England, namely, that the witness need not answer any question, the tendency of which is to expose the witness to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture, should be applied, and that the answers of the witness to questions by the Coroner the tendency of which was to expose the witness to the charge of abetment of the suicide of his wife should not be allowed to be used in this case.

(3.) In several modern statutes in England a witness is compelled to answer even questions the tendency of which is to expose a witness to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture, but provision is made in all those statutes for indemnifying the witness from the result of giving such answers. Mr. Velinker has tried to take this matter out of the provisions of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act because he feels that, so far as this Court is concerned, it is bound by the judgment of the appeal Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Ganu Sonba [1888] 12 Bom. 440 where Mr. Bayley (Acting Chief Justice) and Mr. Justice Parsons held (Mr. Justice Birdwood dissenting) that Section 132 makes a distinction between those cases in which a witness voluntarily answers a question and those in which he is compelled to answer, and gives him a protection in the latter of these cases only, and that protection is afforded only to answers which the witness had objected to give or which he had asked to be, excused from giving, and which he had been compelled by the Court to give.