Did You Know ?

Privileged communications is an exchange of information between two individuals in a confidential relationship.  A privileged communication is a private statement that must be kept in confidence by the recipient for the benefit of the communicator. Even if it is relevant to a case, a privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court. Privileged communications are controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process. Generally, the laws that guide civil and criminal trials are designed to allow the admission of relevant evidence. Parties generally have access to all information that will help yield a just result in the case. Privileged communications are an exception to this rule. 

Privileged communications exist because society values the privacy or purpose of certain relationships. The established privileged communications are those between wife and husband, clergy and communicant, psychotherapist and patient, physician and patient, and attorney and client.

These relationships are protected for various reasons. The wife-husband and clergy-communicant privileges protect the general sanctity of marriage and religion. The psychotherapist or physician and patient privilege promotes full disclosure in the interests of the patient's health. If patients were unable to keep secret communications with psychotherapists or physicians relating to treatment or diagnosis, they might give doctors incomplete information. If doctors received incomplete information, they might be unable to administer health care to the patient, which is the very purpose of the doctor-patient relationship.

The following communications fall in the category of privileged communication under the Indian Evidence Act and they cannot be ordinarily disclosed to the Court by the person to whom they are made:-

• All verbal & written communication made between husband and wife during the existence of their marriage, is strictly protected from disclosure. Neither spouse can be compelled or permitted in a Court of law to give evidence of what has been told to him / her by his / her spouse. For example if a husband comes and tells his wife that he has committed murder, then, even if the wife wants to disclose the said fact, her evidence cannot be accepted by Courts as her knowledge is based on 'privileged communication'. ( However this privilege can be waived by the party making such communication)        

         But if, say for example,  murder has been committed by a woman's husband in her presence, 

         she is free to give her evidence that she saw her husband commit murder.

• No public officer can be compelled to disclose official communication made to him in official confidence, when he considers that public interest will suffer by such disclosure.

• No Police Officer can be compelled to say from where he got the information as to the commission of any offence.

• If a man, with the purpose of engaging an advocate to defend him in Court, goes and tells that advocate that he's committed a crime and he even narrates to him how he did it the lawyer is barred from disclosing what he told him. Meaning that the lawyer cannot go and tell the Court that actually his client has committed the crime since he himself confessed the same before him. This bar also extends to clerks and servants of the lawyer who ordinarily have the scope of hearing such communication e.g. typist, associates etc. Such a privelege can be waived if so chosen by the client
• A legal adviser is also prohibited from disclosing information given to him by his client.

Information Courtesy :-

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Did You Know

In India a child below the age of 7 years cannot be punished for any crime committed by him / her. The age of a person, if he is under 7 years of age, is a complete defence to any allegation of commission of crime by him. Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code says that " Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. "




Further a child who is above 7 years of age but below 12 years, shall not be liable for punishment if it can be shown that he, at the time of commission of crime, had not attained sufficient maturity for understanding the nature and consequence of his actions. Section 83 of IPC lays down that "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion."




Thus while in the case of a child below seven years of age, simply proving his age would exempt him from punishment, in the latter case (child above 7 years and below 12 years), it has to be additionally proven that he was not mature enough, at the time of committing the act, to understand the nature of his acts or its consequences.

Did You Know ?

If a person attempts to commit suicide but fails in his attempt then he is liable for punishment under Section 309 of the IPC.


Section 309, IPC says that "Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."


It is the only crime which is punishable in the stage of 'attempt' but nonpunishable if the act is completed.

This provision was declared unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life) in the case of P. Rathinam Vs. Union of India (1994) wherein the Supreme Court declared this provision as void as (besides other reasons) it is cruel and doubly punishes a person who has already suffered a lot in life. But eventually this decision was overruled by Supreme Court in the case of Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (1996). The Court rejected the argument that the right to live with dignity also includes the corollary right to die as and when one feels necessary on the ground that living with dignity may no longer be possible.

Therefore the present position of law is that if a person attempts to commit suicide and does any ostensible or definitive act towards such attempt then he is liable to be punished u/s 309 of IPC. For example a man may buy kerosene and match stick, pour the kerosene on his body and light the matchstick. But he is not guilty of attempt to commit suicide. But the moment he lights himself, he becomes guilty under Section 309, IPC. Similarly if a woman runs to a well to jump in it & die and just at the mouth of the well people catch her. She is not guilty. But if she jumps and then people rescue her, she is liable under Section 309, IPC.


The test is that if the relevant action would have led to the achievement of the purpose had there been no external interference, then that is the stage where attempt is said to be complete and irreversible. At that stage only an act becomes an attempt and the person becomes liable for punishment.