MOHIDEEN v. NAMBIRALE et al,

MOHIDEEN v. NAMBIRALE et al,

P. C., Anurádhapura, 17,938,

 

" The Oaths Ordinance, 1895," ss, 8 and 9- -Decisory oath in criminal proceedings- How far it binds the accused-Scope of the Ordinance in criminal matters.

Under " The Oaths Ordinance, 1895," when parties to civil suits agree to be bound by an oath, it is conclusive; but it is not, so in criminal, proceedings.

Ho, where an accused party offered to be bound by a particular form of oath to ho taken by a witness for the prosecution, held, that the Court was not right in accepting such offer and convicting the accused on the evidence given on such oath.

If after evidence is taken on an unusual form of oath, an accused person asks to be allowed to withdraw his claim to be tried and to plead guilty, the Court may allow that plea to be recorded and then sentence him; but so long as the claim to be tried stands, the Court cannot convict except on sufficient evidence.

All that the Oaths Ordinance does, as to criminal proceedings, is to allow evidence to be given under the sanction of an oath more particularly binding on the conscience of the witness than the oath or affirmation i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document