Lol Rashmi has common sense :P - Page 2

Lol kuch bhi...accused can only answer under 313 of crpc 😆 that too not compulsion... Rest all his lawyer defends him that's it! Or if judge ask him question under section 165 of evidence tab or leading questions...Even movies me bhi nhi dikhate direct accused jawab deta hua 😆 Only witness speak not accused 🤣

Rashmi was right. Asim was supposed to answer not shukla. Common sense ACTUALLY SIRF rashmi mein tha

Originally posted by: BebaakBegum

^^ Ermm I was about to write a long-ass para to state Shukla actually lacked sense there. But SP and others have already done the job.

Just wanna say

So true🤣

Originally posted by: pallavi_

Lol kuch bhi...accused can only answer under 313 of crpc 😆 that too not compulsion... Rest all his lawyer defends him that's it! Or if judge ask him question under section 165 of evidence tab or leading questions...Even movies me bhi nhi dikhate direct accused jawab deta hua 😆 Only witness speak not accused 🤣

The “accused” can also be questioned in the witness stand - they’re not precluded from the examination process. And when and if they are summoned to the stand - then their lawyer needs to the shut the hell up unless they’re objecting to the line of questioning.

Not to mention - lawyers of opposing parties do not ask each other questions - that’s not how trials are conducted. Anyway - not gonna write an essay here explaining the process. Itna kardiya - ab is-se zyaada people can think what they like. Any lawyers or legal show fans reading this will concur - unless I’m mistaken re how to do my job.

Originally posted by: SP2684

The “accused” can also be questioned in the witness stand - they’re not precluded from the examination process. And when and if they are summoned to the stand - then their lawyer needs to the shut the hell up unless they’re objecting to the line of questioning.

Not to mention - lawyers of opposing parties do not ask each other questions - that’s not how trials are conducted. Anyway - not gonna write an essay here explaining the process. Itna kardiya - ab is-se zyaada people can think what they like. Any lawyers or legal show fans reading this will concur - unless I’m mistaken re how to do my job.

No accused is immune to be witness under article 20(3) of constitution and he can be examined as witness under section 315 of crpc that too with their consent.. m a law student by myself that's why m telling it..

And u can refer any movie or serial jispe iljam hota hai wo khud ko defend nhi krte only witness give real counts

Originally posted by: pallavi_

No accused is immune to be witness under article 20(3) of constitution and he can be examined as witness under section 315 of crpc that too with their consent.. m a law student by myself that's why m telling it..

And u can refer any movie or serial jispe iljam hota hai wo khud ko defend nhi krte only witness give real counts

I’ll happily admit I’m not the most well versed on the Indian judicial process - but given they had Asim stand in the witness stand yesterday, it’s a valid presumption that he was examined as a witness. And in such circumstances, he answers - not his lawyer.

Originally posted by: SP2684

I’ll happily admit I’m not the most well versed on the Indian judicial process - but given they had Asim stand in the witness stand yesterday, it’s a valid presumption that he was examined as a witness. And in such circumstances, he answers - not his lawyer.

Still it's accused wish...u can't force him that he should reply 😊 m not expecting Rashmi to be well versed with legal rules n procedures but at least thoda common sense chahiye tha...movies dekhke glass fekna seekh liya but itna bhi seekh leti

Originally posted by: pallavi_

Still it's accused wish...u can't force him that he should reply 😊 m not expecting Rashmi to be well versed with legal rules n procedures but at least thoda common sense chahiye tha...movies dekhke glass fekna seekh liya but itna bhi seekh leti

Yeah then he can say he chooses not to answer - standing there being examined he does not say his lawyer will answer on his behalf. If that’s how it’s done in the Indian courts - that’s news to me.

And I can name multiple film court scenes - and Bollywood ones at that - where the accused is answering questions in the witness stand - and there is no pre-question asked regarding whether they choose to answer the question or not. So Rashmi’s common sense is not lacking from what I can see.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned - Asim consented to being questioned when he hopped up on that stand. And regardless, as a witness he cannot have his lawyer answering on his behalf. Rashmi mein sense ho na ho, Shukla and Asim were clearly lacking in it from where I was watching. My view - and happy to leave it here.

I guess both teams were trying to win points and they were using whatever technique they can!

Rashmi insisted on getting answers from Asim and Sid insisted on answering his behalf!

LOL it's Rashmi who had common sense and clearly Shukla didn't that's why he didn't stop her when she didn't let her clients asnwer.😆