aparna garg
11 June 2014 at 14:06
What is the basic point of difference between the term "accomplice" used under section 133 r/w 114 ii(b)and the term "co-accused" used under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 ?
Or are they one of the same things.
Why Indian Evidence Act has used the word "accomplice", instead it could have used the word "approver" because if we go into depth of section 133 r/w 114 ill(b) it appears as if it is the accomplice ( or I have a doubt that ,can I use the word co-accused here ) who has turned approver, the evidentiary value of whom is actually in question .
Please help me in clarifying this concept through an example on these two terms.
Thanks in advance to our panel of experts.
aparna garg
10 June 2014 at 15:16
Respected sir,
Please tell me the procedure as to how and from where should I get my advocates Identity card issued by Bar council of Delhi be renewed ? I got enrolled in the year 2008 and it got expired in 2013.So Is there any late renewal fee in getting it renewed.And will this lapsed year in which I could not get my I card renewed will be included after renewal? Please sir,kindly answer in detail.I will be very thankful to you.
REGARDS
Aparna Garg
Indian evidence act,1872
What is the basic point of difference between the term "accomplice" used under section 133 r/w 114 ii(b)and the term "co-accused" used under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 ?
Or are they one of the same things.
Why Indian Evidence Act has used the word "accomplice", instead it could have used the word "approver" because if we go into depth of section 133 r/w 114 ill(b) it appears as if it is the accomplice ( or I have a doubt that ,can I use the word co-accused here ) who has turned approver, the evidentiary value of whom is actually in question .
Please help me in clarifying this concept through an example on these two terms.
Thanks in advance to our panel of experts.