FUN TRIVIA 2 on evidence

1ST  STORY

1.      Ms. X, a popular actress has just been called a " mean money-grabbing, miserly b***h" by Mr.Y, a press reporter, in his article on movie stars. Like any other person with a reputation to protect, she sues the newspaper for severe damages. Mr. Y and the newspaper take the defence that they are only publishing the truth. So on whom does the burden of proof lie to show that Mr.Y has or has not caused the defamation?

-          Ms.X. According to the law of evidence, he or she who claims a right, must prove that such a right exists and that damage has been caused as a result of the violation of such a right. So, Ms.X has to show that Mr.Y's statement was defamatory, in that, the burden lies on her to show that Mr.Y's statement caused right thinking members of society to have a lower impression of her.

2.      In a defamation case, where Ms. X alleges that Mr. Y, a newspaper reporter has defamed her, Mr.Y and the newspaper have taken the defence of truth. This means that they have to actually prove that what they said about Ms. X is a 'mean, money grabbing, miserly b***h' is in fact true. Which of the below can be produced as evidence in the court?

-          All of them (Friends and relatives of Ms.X who are aware of her ways, Bank records of Ms.X showing income and expenditure, Ms.X's behaviour 'caught on tape'). All of the above are relevant evidence relating to character, since such character is relevant in this case. On a side note, Ms.Y would have probably done well to remember my Evidence professor's adage on defamation suits, '..they are like bikinis; they reveal more than they hide'. Needless to say Ms.Y suffered a huge public embarassment, when her case was dismissed.

2ND STORY

1.      So I, living in Bangalore, India, decide that I don't like G's face. I pick up the nearest iron rod I can lay my hands on, wait for him in a dark corner, make sure there are no witnesses, and I keep hitting him till he is dead. I throw the iron rod into a lake, to remove prints, jog upto the nearest police station and confess to the police officer. Can I be convicted on the basis of the murder weapon and my confession?

-          No. Shocking as it is, the police would be unable to convict me under Indian law, if I simply go and confess and even tell them where the murder weapon is. This is because confessions made to a police officer, or made in police custody cannot be produced as evidence in the Court. Even evidence they discovered from my confession cannot be produced. They can at best say that they found an iron rod, with what looks like a blood stain. This was more or less the fact situation in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, where despite the confession of the accused and the recovery of the murder weapon based on the confession, the Supreme Court of India let the suspect off.

                     * Is this also applicable in Malaysia,hmmmm???

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Law-of-Evidence-220020.html

<3 FADHLIN SAKINA <3