|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Article Published in the Express Magazine Dated
September 16,
2001
General Attorney : Rajiv K. Luthra
I was born of khatri parents but have married
into a family which belongs to the scheduled
caste. Were I to apply for a government job, will
I be entitled to the reservation quota by virtue
of my marriage in a backward class ?
Sangeeta Kumar, Bihar
The Constitution of India has provided reservation
for the backward classes in our society with the
primary objective of removing the social,
cultural, economic and educational disability
suffered by these classes. The intention is to
integrate them in the mainstream of the nation's
life and provide them with opportunities and
facilities. It has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that a candidate who has had an
advantageous start in life by being born in a
forward caste but is transplanted in backward
caste by marriage, adoption or conversion does not
become eligible to the benefit of reservation
under the Constitution. Acquisition of the status
of scheduled caste by voluntary mobility into
these categories would play fraud on the
Constitution, and would frustrate benign
constitutional policy. Thus, it shall not be
possible for you to entitle yourself to the
benefits provided to a backward caste on the basis
of your marriage to a person belonging to the
scheduled caste.
I am a witness in a criminal case, but as the
episode took place almost a year ago, I fail to
recall the facts and details in a precise manner,
and the sequence of events as they took place. I
wonder how the court will react if I made a
discrepant statement. Please advise.
Srinivas Jain, Berhampur
You need not worry because while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, the normal approach of the
courts is to see whether the evidence of the
witness appears to have a ring of truth. Once the
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary
for the court to scrutinise the evidence,
particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the
evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies
on trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences
torn out of context here and there from the
evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of
the evidence as a whole. The courts do not attach
much importance to minor discrepancies since by
and large, a witness cannot be expected to possess
a photographic memory and it would be unrealistic
to expect that from a witness. Besides small
discrepancies are overlooked since it is
understandable that some witnesses, overawed by
the atmosphere of the court, get confused. It has
even been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
discrepancies which do not go to the root of the
matter and shake the basic version of the witness,
cannot be attached with undue importance.
Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events that take place
in rapid succession in a short span of time. A
witness is liable to get confused or mixed up when
interrogated later on. In light of all the above
you may be informed that the courts shall mainly
stress upon whether the discrepancies noticed in
your version goes to the root of the matter or
pertain to the insignificant aspects thereof. Your
evidence may be rejected in case of the former
only.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
