Relevancy of inculpatory and exculpatory statements in judicial proceedings a comparative study of India and USA

Abstract

Relevancy is the consolidated principle underlying the evidentiary rules. Admissible evidence must satisfy the test of relevancy. Relevancy and admissibility of any statement in judicial proceedings is not the same thing. newlineIn India and America there are laws governing Confessions, but there are no such recognised laws governing inculpatory and exculpatory statements. Such statements are soul of Evidence Law. Courts are giving their judgments in criminal proceedings where only such statements are available, on the basis of, due process of law . In India due process of law is not explicitly given in the Indian Constitution rather it is implicit in Article 21 Procedure established by law . Courts in India is having power of Judicial Review, that is basic feature of the Indian Constitution. The power of Judicial Review is exercisable on legislative, executive and administrative actions. The courts when giving their judgment on a subject on which there is no law, that amounts to encroachment of power by judiciary. It will fail the whole purpose of Separation of Power, that is also a basic feature of Indian Constitution. The Indian Evidence Act is was very well drafted by JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN in 1872. It is time worn now and need some modifications so that the organs of government can work efficiently. In the study the author is taking into consideration both laws of India and USA. Comparing it and find out a best way that will help the Indian judiciary to work newlineefficiently and lawfully. There is need to made some additions and amendments in the India Evidence Act and IPC. newline