INVESTIGATIONS INTO CASUALTIESCentral

Section 41 of The inland vessels act, 1917 in hindi

(1)Whenever, in the course of a trial referred to in section 40, the evidence of any witness is required in relation to the subject-matter, any deposition previously made by him in relation, to the same subject-matter before any Court making an investigation under this Chapter shall, if authenticated by the signature of the Magistrate or presiding Judge of such Court, be admissible in evidence on proof--
1. (a)that the witness cannot be found within the jurisdiction of the Court before which the trial is held; and
2. (b)that the deposition was made in the presence of the person accused, and that he had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness.
(2)A certificate signed by such Magistrate or presiding Judge that the deposition was made in the presence of the accused, and that he had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness shall, unless the contrary be proved, be sufficient evidence that it was so made and that the accused had such opportunity.

Summary

Sworn statements, called depositions, from a witness who is now missing can sometimes be used as evidence in a trial.
For a missing witness's statement to be allowed, it must have been made originally during an investigation under this law.
The statement must be signed and authenticated by the Magistrate or the presiding Judge.
It must be proved that the witness cannot be found within the court's jurisdiction.
The statement is only valid if it was originally made while the accused person was present.
The accused person must have had a fair chance to cross-examine, or ask questions of, that witness when the statement was first made.

Practical examples

1In a trial regarding a 2023 boiler explosion, a key witness named Suresh has moved to another country and cannot be found. The judge allows Suresh's signed statement from the earlier investigation to be read as evidence because the defendant was there to hear it and ask Suresh questions at that time.

2A prosecutor tries to use a written note from a sailor who disappeared. The judge rejects it under Section 41 because the sailor wrote the note privately, and the accused captain never had a chance to cross-examine him about his claims.

FAQ

1. Can a written statement be used if a witness is missing under Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917?

Yes, Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, allows a previous deposition to be admissible in evidence if the witness cannot be found within the jurisdiction of the court.

2. What proof is needed for an absent witness's statement under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917?

Under Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, it must be proved that the witness cannot be found and that the statement was made in the presence of the accused with a chance for cross-examination.

3. Does a judge's signature matter for old witness statements under the 1917 Act?

Yes, Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, requires the deposition to be authenticated by the signature of the Magistrate or presiding Judge of the court that took it.

Test yourself

Q1.Under Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, when is a previous deposition admissible in a trial?

Q2.What is a mandatory requirement for using a missing witness's statement under Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917?

Q3.According to Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, what opportunity must the accused person have had?

Q4.What serves as sufficient evidence that the rules were followed under Section 41 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917?

40PreviousSection 40 Power of Court to commit for trial and to bind over witnesses.42NextSection 42 Report by Court to State Government.

←Section 40 Section 42→