Law of Evidence previous year questions

1. Answer the Following in one or two sentences

a. What is Confession?

A confession is an admission of guilt by a person accused of a crime, made voluntarily and without coercion,
and can be used as evidence in court proceedings under certain conditions outlined in the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.

b. Who is an Accomplice?

An accomplice is someone who helps or aids another person in the commission of a crime, whether before,
during, or after the crime, and can be held criminally liable for their involvement.

c. Which facts need not be proved?

Under the Indian Evidence Act, certain facts are presumed or need not be proved. These include facts of
common knowledge, facts admitted by the parties, and facts judicially noticed by the court.

d. What do you mean by evidence?

Evidence refers to any information, whether oral, documentary, or physical, that is presented in a legal
proceeding to prove or disprove a fact. It helps establish the truth or falsity of claims made by parties
involved in a case.

e. What do you mean by Judicial Confession?

A judicial confession is a statement made by an accused person before a court of law admitting guilt to a
crime charged against them. It is considered a highly incriminating form of evidence in legal proceedings.

f. What do you mean by Approver?

An approver is an accomplice in a crime who agrees to testify against their co-accused in exchange for
immunity, pardon, or a lesser punishment. They provide evidence against others involved in the crime in
exchange for leniency in their own sentencing.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

g. Explain the meaning of “Plea of Alibi.”?

A plea of alibi is a defense raised by the accused in a criminal case, claiming that they were elsewhere at the
time the alleged crime was committed and therefore could not have been involved. It seeks to establish that
the accused could not have committed the offense because they were in a different place when it occurred.

h. What is re-examination? Which of the parties can re-examine the witness?

Re-examination is the stage in a trial where the party who called a witness has the opportunity to question
the witness again after they have been cross-examined by the opposing party. Typically, the party who
originally called the witness has the right to re-examine them, but the scope of re-examination is usually
limited to clarifying matters raised during cross-examination.

i. Define the term “not proved” under the Indian Evidence Act.?

Under the Indian Evidence Act, the term "not proved" refers to a situation where a fact or proposition has
not been sufficiently established by the evidence presented in court. This means that the evidence provided is
not convincing or credible enough to establish the truth of the fact or proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.

j. What is extra -judicial Confession?

An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by a person outside of a formal legal proceeding, such as to
the police or to someone not connected with the case, admitting to the commission of a crime. While such
confessions can be used as evidence in court, they must be voluntary and made without coercion to be
admissible.

a) Define “Secure Digital Signature”

A Secure Digital Signature is a cryptographic technique used to validate the authenticity and integrity of
digital documents or messages. It involves the use of a digital key pair (public and private key) to create a
unique signature for a document, ensuring that it has not been altered and that it originates from the
purported sender.

b) Define “Affidavit”?

An affidavit is a written statement or declaration made under oath or affirmation, typically sworn before a

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

notary public or another authorized official. It is used as evidence in legal proceedings and confirms the
truthfulness of the statements contained within it.

c) What is “Conclusive Proof”

Conclusive proof refers to evidence that is so conclusive and persuasive that it cannot be rebutted or
contradicted. It establishes a fact beyond any doubt and leaves no room for further argument or debate.

d) Who is a “Hostile witness”

A hostile witness is a witness who demonstrates antagonism or unwillingness to testify truthfully or cooperate
with the party who called them to testify. This can include giving evasive answers, providing contradictory
testimony, or openly opposing the party's interests in court.

e) What is meant by “Professional communications”

Professional communications typically refer to exchanges, discussions, or correspondence that occur within a
professional or business context. This can include emails, memos, letters, meetings, and any other form of
communication conducted in the course of professional duties or transactions.

f) Explain “Fact in issue” and “Fact in Law”

"Fact in issue" refers to a disputed fact that is directly relevant to the case and is being considered by the
court for determination. It is a fact that the parties are contesting and upon which the outcome of the case
may hinge.

"Fact in law" refers to a fact that is established by legal principles or statutes and does not require further
proof. These facts are recognized as true or indisputable under the law and form the basis for legal decisions.

g) What is “refreshing memory”

Refreshing memory refers to a process where a witness is allowed to review a document or other record to
help recall specific details or events relevant to their testimony. This can occur during a trial or deposition
when a witness is having difficulty remembering certain facts or events.

h) Explain “handwriting expert”

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

A handwriting expert, also known as a forensic document examiner, is a trained professional who analyzes
handwriting samples to determine authenticity, identify individuals, or detect forgery or alterations in
documents. They use specialized techniques and knowledge to evaluate characteristics such as writing style,
pressure, and stroke patterns to draw conclusions about the origin and authorship of handwriting samples.

i) Explain “Dumb witness”

The term "dumb witness" refers to a witness who is unable to communicate or testify verbally, often due to
physical or mental incapacity. In legal contexts, this may include individuals who are deaf, mute, or otherwise
unable to speak. However, their testimony can still be conveyed through alternative means, such as sign
language interpreters, written statements, or other forms of communication assistance.

j) Who is an “Accomplice”

An accomplice is someone who aids, assists, or participates in the commission of a crime, either before, during,
or after its commission. Accomplices can be charged and prosecuted along with the principal offender for
their involvement in the criminal activity.

a) What are leading questions?

Leading questions are questions that suggest a particular answer or contain information that prompts the
witness to respond in a certain way. They often contain assumptions or presuppose facts, and they are
generally not allowed during direct examination of witnesses but are permitted during cross-examination.

b. When can a witness be re-examined?

A witness can be re-examined after cross-examination by the party who originally called the witness. Re-
examination typically occurs to clarify matters raised during cross-examination and is conducted by the party
who called the witness to testify.

c. When can a witness be compelled to answer a question?

A witness can be compelled to answer a question when the question is relevant to the case and falls within
the scope of permissible questioning. Additionally, the witness may be compelled to answer if the court orders
them to do so, especially if they are refusing to answer without a valid legal basis such as privilege or
protection against self-incrimination.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

d. Define the term 'fact-in-issue'.

The term "fact-in-issue" refers to a disputed fact that is directly relevant to the case and is being
considered by the court for determination. It is a fact that the parties are contesting and upon which the
outcome of the case may hinge.

e. Define the term 'Affidavit'.

An affidavit is a written statement or declaration made under oath or affirmation, typically sworn before a
notary public or another authorized official. It is used as evidence in legal proceedings and confirms the
truthfulness of the statements contained within it.

f. What are extra - judicial confession?

Extra-judicial confessions are statements made by a person outside of a formal legal proceeding, such as to
the police or to someone not connected with the case, admitting to the commission of a crime. While such
confessions can be used as evidence in court, they must be voluntary and made without coercion to be
admissible.

g. Explain Res Gestae.

Res Gestae refers to statements made by a person that are considered spontaneous and closely connected to
an event or occurrence. These statements are admitted as evidence in court because they are considered part
of the event itself and are presumed to be truthful due to their spontaneous nature. Res Gestae statements
are often made during or immediately after an event, providing insight or context into what happened.

h. Which facts must be proved?

Under the Indian Evidence Act, facts that must be proved are those that are essential to the case and
necessary to establish the claims or defenses of the parties involved. These facts are crucial for the court to
reach a decision on the merits of the case.

i. Which facts must be proved by oral evidence?

Under the Indian Evidence Act, facts that must be proved by oral evidence are those that cannot be proved by
documentary evidence. These include facts such as statements made by witnesses regarding events,

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

conversations, or personal observations that are not documented in writing.

j. On whom ‘Burden of proof’ lies?.

The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In other words, the party who
makes a claim or allegation in a legal proceeding is generally responsible for providing evidence to support
that claim.

2. Write Short Notes (any 2 out of 4) 12 Marks

a. Dying Declaration

In the Indian Evidence Act, Section 32(1) deals with dying declarations. It states that statements made by a
person who is dead, regarding the cause of their death or any circumstances leading to their death, are
admissible as evidence if the statement relates to the cause of death or the circumstances under which it
occurred.

One landmark case related to dying declarations is the case of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC
22). In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction
if it is found to be truthful, voluntary, and made by the deceased under a clear and settled state of mind,
without any undue influence or tutoring.

The court emphasized that while dying declarations are afforded great weight and credibility, they should be
subjected to close scrutiny to ensure their reliability. Factors such as the mental and physical condition of the
deceased, the nature and extent of injuries, and the absence of any possibility of a fabricated statement are
crucial in determining the admissibility and reliability of a dying declaration.

Furthermore, in the case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 297), the Supreme Court reiterated
that dying declarations are admissible even if they do not precisely describe the actual manner of assault, as
long as they provide a consistent and coherent account of the incident and identify the accused as the
perpetrator.

These cases underscore the importance of dying declarations in criminal proceedings and the stringent
requirements for their admissibility and reliability.

b. Opinion of Experts and their evidentiary value

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 45 deals with the opinion of experts. It states that opinions of
experts, such as scientists, handwriting experts, and medical professionals, are admissible as evidence. The

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

court may consider the opinions of experts on matters that require specialized knowledge beyond the
understanding of the average person.

In the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 3025), the Supreme Court of
India emphasized the importance of expert opinions in medical negligence cases. The court held that expert
medical opinion is invaluable in determining the standard of care expected from medical professionals and
whether the actions of the accused deviated from this standard.

However, the evidentiary value of expert opinions depends on various factors, including the credibility and
qualifications of the expert, the methodology used in forming the opinion, and the relevance of the opinion to
the issues in the case. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu (AIR 2000 SC 1690), the Supreme Court
cautioned that expert opinions must be based on sound reasoning and scientific principles, and mere ipse
dixit or ipse dixit of an expert without providing reasons is of no evidentiary value.

Courts also consider the weight to be attached to expert opinions based on the clarity, consistency, and
persuasiveness of the expert's reasoning. Additionally, expert opinions may be subjected to cross-examination
to test their reliability and credibility.

expert opinions play a crucial role in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving technical or specialized
matters. However, their evidentiary value is subject to scrutiny and assessment by the courts based on various
factors, including the qualifications and methodology of the expert.

c. Refreshing Memory

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 159 deals with refreshing memory. It allows a witness to refer to any
document to refresh their memory while testifying if the witness:

1. Cannot remember the facts sufficiently to testify accurately.

2. Has personal knowledge of the facts recorded in the document.

3. Made or verified the document when the facts were fresh in their memory.

In the case of Kasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1958 SC 512), the Supreme Court of India emphasized
the importance of Section 159 in enabling witnesses to accurately recall and testify to events. The court held
that a witness may refer to a document to refresh their memory, but the document itself is not admissible as
evidence unless it falls under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

However, the witness must rely on their memory and not on the document itself while testifying. If the
witness's memory is not sufficiently refreshed after referring to the document, the court may allow leading
questions to prompt the witness's recollection.

Refreshing memory serves to enhance the accuracy and reliability of witness testimony by enabling witnesses
to recall events more accurately. It ensures that witnesses can provide truthful and reliable evidence, thereby

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

facilitating the administration of justice.

d. Examination of Witnesses

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 138 deals with the examination of witnesses. It outlines the three
modes of examination of witnesses: examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.

1. Examination-in-chief: This is the initial questioning of a witness by the party who called them to testify.
The purpose is to elicit evidence supporting the party's case. Section 137 provides that leading questions,
which suggest a particular answer, are not allowed during examination-in-chief except in certain circumstances.

2. Cross-examination: This occurs after the examination-in-chief and is conducted by the opposing party. The
purpose is to test the credibility of the witness, challenge their testimony, or elicit additional information.
Section 143 allows wide latitude in cross-examination and permits leading questions.

3. Re-examination: This is the final stage of questioning and is conducted by the party who originally called
the witness. The purpose is to clarify matters raised during cross-examination. Section 146 restricts the scope
of re-examination to matters arising out of cross-examination.

In the case of Mohd. Azim v. State of Haryana (AIR 2012 SC 1685), the Supreme Court of India reiterated the
importance of adhering to the procedural requirements for examination of witnesses. The court emphasized
that the principles of fair trial and natural justice require courts to ensure that witnesses are examined and
cross-examined thoroughly and fairly, without undue influence or bias. This case underscores the significance
of proper examination of witnesses in upholding the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

a) Documents 30 years old.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 90 pertains to the admissibility of certain documents as evidence of
facts which occurred 30 years ago. It states that documents produced from proper custody and purporting to
be at least 30 years old at the time of production are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein,
without further proof of their execution or authorship.

In the case of Basheeruddin Ahmad v. Mst. Zubaida Khatoon (AIR 1965 SC 1627), the Supreme Court of India
elaborated on the requirements for admissibility under Section 90. The court held that for documents to be
admissible under this section, they must be shown to have been in existence for at least 30 years and must be
produced from proper custody. Proper custody refers to custody in which the document would reasonably be
expected to be found.

The court further emphasized that the age and appearance of the document can be considered as evidence of
its authenticity. However, if the document is produced from a suspicious source or its authenticity is otherwise
in doubt, further proof of its execution or authorship may be required.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

The case law underscores the significance of Section 90 in facilitating the admissibility of documents as
evidence of facts which occurred 30 years ago. It provides a mechanism for proving facts based on documents
of considerable antiquity, thereby contributing to the administration of justice and the resolution of disputes.

b) Ambiguous document

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 95 deals with the admissibility of ambiguous documents. It states that
if a document is ambiguous or its meaning is uncertain, any oral evidence may be admitted to explain its
meaning. However, Section 95 also specifies that oral evidence cannot be used to contradict, vary, add to, or
subtract from the terms of a written document.

In the case of Gopal Krishna v. Smt. Ram Dulari (AIR 1976 SC 1297), the Supreme Court of India elucidated
on the principles regarding ambiguous documents. The court held that while oral evidence is admissible to
explain the meaning of an ambiguous document, it cannot be used to alter or contradict the clear terms of
the document. The court emphasized that the primary goal is to ascertain the true intention of the parties
based on the language of the document itself, and oral evidence can only be used to aid in this interpretation.

Furthermore, the court reiterated that the admission of oral evidence to explain an ambiguous document is
subject to the principle of best evidence, meaning that the best evidence available should be produced to
prove the contents of the document.

This case law highlights the importance of Section 95 in resolving disputes arising from ambiguous documents
and underscores the limitations on the use of oral evidence in interpreting such documents. It reaffirms the
principle that the written terms of a document prevail unless there are compelling reasons to interpret them
otherwise.

c) Hearsay evidence

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 60 addresses the concept of hearsay evidence. It states that oral
evidence must be direct and not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as any statement made by a person not
called as a witness, which is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted therein.

In the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47), the Privy Council emphasized the
importance of excluding hearsay evidence in legal proceedings. The court held that hearsay evidence is
generally unreliable and should be excluded because it lacks the safeguards of cross-examination and oath,
which are essential for ensuring the accuracy and credibility of evidence.

However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as dying declarations (Section 32), statements made
by persons who cannot be called as witnesses (Section 32), and statements of fact in issue or relevant facts
made by parties to the proceeding (Section 21).

In the case of Kasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1958 SC 520), the Supreme Court of India reiterated

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

the principle that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible but recognized the exceptions provided under the
Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized the need for caution in admitting hearsay evidence and stressed
the importance of ensuring that the exceptions are applied judiciously and in accordance with the principles
of fairness and justice.

These cases underscore the significance of the hearsay rule in maintaining the integrity and reliability of
evidence in legal proceedings while recognizing certain exceptions based on necessity and reliability.

d) Secondary evidence

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 63 deals with secondary evidence. It states that secondary evidence
may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document when the original document is unavailable
or when its production is legally impossible or exceptionally difficult.

In the case of Ram Baran Prasad Singh v. Ram Mohit Hazra (AIR 2002 SC 1775), the Supreme Court of India
elucidated on the principles regarding secondary evidence. The court held that secondary evidence is
admissible only when the conditions specified in Section 63 are satisfied. These conditions include:

1. The existence of the original document must be proved.

2. The party seeking to adduce secondary evidence must give notice to the adverse party.

3. The adverse party has the opportunity to inspect the original document if it is in the possession of the
party seeking to adduce secondary evidence.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that secondary evidence must be as reliable as the original document and
must accurately represent its contents. The party seeking to adduce secondary evidence bears the burden of
proving its authenticity and reliability.

This case law highlights the importance of Section 63 in allowing parties to rely on secondary evidence when
the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It ensures that parties are not unduly prejudiced by the
absence of the original document and promotes fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

a. Presumption relating to documents thirty years old

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 90 pertains to the presumption relating to documents thirty years old.
It states that documents produced from proper custody and purporting to be at least thirty years old at the
time of production are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein, without further proof of their
execution or authorship.

In the case of Basheeruddin Ahmad v. Mst. Zubaida Khatoon (AIR 1965 SC 1627), the Supreme Court of India
elaborated on the requirements for admissibility under Section 90. The court held that for documents to be
admissible under this section, they must be shown to have been in existence for at least thirty years and must

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

be produced from proper custody. Proper custody refers to custody in which the document would reasonably be
expected to be found.

The court further emphasized that the age and appearance of the document can be considered as evidence of
its authenticity. However, if the document is produced from a suspicious source or its authenticity is otherwise
in doubt, further proof of its execution or authorship may be required.

The case law underscores the significance of Section 90 in facilitating the admissibility of documents as
evidence of facts which occurred thirty years ago. It provides a mechanism for proving facts based on
documents of considerable antiquity, thereby contributing to the administration of justice and the resolution
of disputes.

b. Difference between Admission and Confession

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, distinguishes between admission and confession under different sections:

1. Admission:

- Section 17 defines admission as any statement made by a party to the proceeding or by someone interested
in the outcome of the proceeding, which is against their own interest.

- Admissions can be oral, written, or contained in electronic form.

- They are admissible as evidence against the party making them and can be used to prove facts in issue or
relevant facts.

- admissions are not conclusive proof but are considered relevant evidence.

2. Confession:

- Section 24 defines confession as an admission made by an accused person that they committed the offense
charged or a relevant fact.

- Confessions must be voluntary, unequivocal, and made in a judicial proceeding or before a Magistrate or
police officer.

- Confessions are generally considered to be the strongest form of evidence against the person making them
and can be used as a basis for conviction.

- confessions must be corroborated by other evidence to ensure their reliability.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

These sections of the Indian Evidence Act outline the distinctions between admission and confession in terms
of their definitions, admissibility, and evidentiary value in legal proceedings.

c. Discuss exclusion of hearsay evidence

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 60 addresses the exclusion of hearsay evidence. It states that oral
evidence must be direct and not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as any statement made by a person not
called as a witness, which is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted therein.

In the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47), the Privy Council emphasized the
importance of excluding hearsay evidence in legal proceedings. The court held that hearsay evidence is
generally unreliable and should be excluded because it lacks the safeguards of cross-examination and oath,
which are essential for ensuring the accuracy and credibility of evidence.

However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as dying declarations (Section 32), statements made
by persons who cannot be called as witnesses (Section 32), and statements of fact in issue or relevant facts
made by parties to the proceeding (Section 21).

In the case of Kasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1958 SC 520), the Supreme Court of India reiterated
the principle that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible but recognized the exceptions provided under the
Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized the need for caution in admitting hearsay evidence and stressed
the importance of ensuring that the exceptions are applied judiciously and in accordance with the principles
of fairness and justice.

These cases underscore the significance of the hearsay rule in maintaining the integrity and reliability of
evidence in legal proceedings while recognizing certain exceptions based on necessity and reliability.

d. Burden of proof

In the Indian Evidence Act, Section 101 deals with the burden of proof. It states that the burden of proof lies
on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In other words, the party who makes a claim or
allegation in a legal proceeding is generally responsible for providing evidence to support that claim.

In the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637), the Supreme Court of India
elucidated on the principles regarding the burden of proof. The court held that the burden of proof is a
dynamic concept that shifts depending on the issues and evidence presented in the case. The party who
asserts a fact must prove it by preponderance of probabilities, but once a prima facie case is established, the
burden shifts to the other party to rebut the evidence or raise reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution in criminal
cases, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

This case law highlights the importance of Section 101 in allocating the burden of proof in legal proceedings
and underscores the principles of fairness and justice in requiring parties to substantiate their claims with
evidence.

4. Answer the following in detail 24 Marks

a. Define Evidence. What are the different kinds of Evidence?

Evidence refers to any information, whether oral, documentary, or physical, that is presented in a legal
proceeding to prove or disprove a fact. It helps establish the truth or falsity of claims made by parties
involved in a case.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, evidence is classified into various types:

1. Oral Evidence: This includes statements made by witnesses during their testimony in court, either in the
form of direct examination, cross-examination, or re-examination. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act deals
with oral evidence.

2. Documentary Evidence: This encompasses any written or printed document, such as contracts, letters,
records, or certificates, which is presented as evidence in court. Section 61 to 90 of the Indian Evidence Act
deals with documentary evidence.

3. Real Evidence: This refers to physical objects or tangible items presented in court as evidence, such as
weapons, clothing, or forensic samples. Real evidence is used to demonstrate the existence or condition of a
material fact. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the relevancy of facts.

4. Hearsay Evidence: Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by someone other than the witness, which
are offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted therein. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act
excludes hearsay evidence.

A landmark case regarding different kinds of evidence is Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC
47), where the Privy Council emphasized the importance of direct evidence over hearsay evidence in legal

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

proceedings. This case underscores the principle that oral evidence must be direct and not hearsay to be
admissible in court.

b. Explain the difference between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence.

Direct evidence

- Direct evidence refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for inference or
presumption.

- It is based on personal knowledge or observation of the witness.

- For example, an eyewitness testimony about seeing the accused commit a crime is direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence,

- Circumstantial evidence refers to evidence from which a fact may be inferred indirectly.

- It does not directly prove the fact in question but establishes a chain of events or circumstances from which
the fact can be logically inferred.

- For example, finding the accused's fingerprints at the scene of the crime is circumstantial evidence.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, there is no specific provision that distinguishes between direct and
circumstantial evidence. However, both types of evidence are admissible in court proceedings.

In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343), the
Supreme Court of India discussed the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The court held
that circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence if it leads to a moral certainty of the guilt of the
accused. The court emphasized that the guilt of the accused can be established beyond reasonable doubt based
on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused and exclude
any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

This case law illustrates the significance of both direct and circumstantial evidence in establishing the guilt
or innocence of the accused in legal proceedings.

c. Who is a Witness? Discuss in detail about law relating to Witnesses.

A witness is an individual who provides testimony or evidence in a legal proceeding based on their firsthand
knowledge or perception of events relevant to the case. Witnesses play a crucial role in the administration of
justice by providing information and evidence to help establish the truth or falsity of claims made by parties
involved in the proceeding.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

The law relating to witnesses is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which outlines the rules
and procedures governing the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses, as well as the
admissibility of their testimony in court.

**Key Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act relevant to witnesses**:

1. **Competency of Witnesses**:

- Sections 118 to 121 of the Indian Evidence Act specify who is competent to testify as a witness and who is
disqualified from being a witness based on factors such as age, mental capacity, and interest in the outcome
of the proceeding.

2. **Examination of Witnesses**:

- Sections 137 to 165 of the Indian Evidence Act govern the examination, cross-examination, and re-
examination of witnesses. These sections outline the procedures for eliciting testimony from witnesses,
challenging their credibility, and clarifying matters raised during cross-examination.

3. **Privileged Communication**:

- Sections 122 to 132 of the Indian Evidence Act provide for certain privileges that protect confidential
communications between specified parties, such as spouses, advocates, and clients, from being disclosed in
court without their consent.

4. **Admissibility of Statements**:

- Sections 32 to 33 of the Indian Evidence Act address the admissibility of certain types of statements
made by witnesses, such as dying declarations and statements against interest.

**Case Law**:

One significant case relevant to witnesses is *Kasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad* (AIR 1958 SC 520). In this

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of proper examination and cross-examination of
witnesses in ensuring the fair and just determination of legal proceedings. The court highlighted the role of
witnesses as repositories of truth and underscored the need for courts to critically evaluate their testimony
to ascertain the facts of the case.

In summary, witnesses are individuals who provide testimony or evidence based on their firsthand knowledge
or perception of events relevant to a legal proceeding. The Indian Evidence Act contains provisions governing
the competency, examination, and admissibility of witness testimony, ensuring a fair and transparent
adjudication process.

d. Define Estoppel. Discuss about different types of Estoppel.

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting a fact or claim that is inconsistent with
their previous conduct, statements, or representations, where allowing such assertion would result in injustice
or unfairness to another party. It operates as a bar or impediment to one party changing their position to the
detriment of another party who has reasonably relied on the former party's words or actions.

**Different types of Estoppel**:

1. **Estoppel by Record**:

- Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, recognizes estoppel by record, also known as estoppel by
judgment. It prevents a party from re-litigating an issue or claim that has been conclusively determined by a
final judgment or decision in a previous case. The principle is based on the idea that the finality of
judgments is essential for the administration of justice.

- Case Law: *Mangilal v. Sugan Chand* (AIR 1968 SC 117). In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that
a judgment of a competent court operates as an estoppel between the same parties or their privies and is
conclusive on the points decided therein.

2. **Estoppel by Deed**:

- This type of estoppel arises from statements or representations made in a deed or written instrument
that are intended to be legally binding. The person making the representations is estopped from later
denying their truth or validity.

- Although not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, this principle is recognized and applied by

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

Indian courts based on common law principles.

3. **Estoppel by Representation**:

- Sections 115 and 116 of the Indian Evidence Act recognize estoppel by representation, also known as
estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct. It arises when a person makes a false representation of fact to
another person who reasonably relies on it to their detriment. The person making the representation is
estopped from later denying its truth.

- Case Law: *Lal Bux Rai v. Sheo Narain Singh* (AIR 1969 SC 675). The Supreme Court held that a party is
estopped from denying the truth of a representation made by his authorized agent.

4. **Equitable Estoppel**:

- Although not specifically defined in the Indian Evidence Act, equitable estoppel is recognized and applied
by Indian courts based on principles of equity and fairness. It arises when one party makes a promise,
assurance, or representation to another party who reasonably relies on it to their detriment. The party making
the promise is estopped from going back on it if doing so would result in injustice.

- Case Law: *State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation* (AIR 2006 SC 677). The Supreme
Court recognized the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the government can be bound by its
promise, representation, or assurance given to citizens, even if not supported by consideration.

These different types of estoppel serve to uphold principles of fairness, consistency, and equity in legal
proceedings by preventing parties from taking inconsistent positions or unfairly benefiting from their own
previous statements or conduct.

1) “Evidence may be given of Facts-in-issue.” analyze the statementcritically.

The statement "Evidence may be given of Facts-in-issue" reflects a fundamental principle of evidence law,
which allows parties to present evidence relevant to the facts that are directly in dispute in a legal
proceeding. This principle is crucial for ensuring a fair and just adjudication process by allowing parties to
adduce evidence to support their claims or defenses.

**Analysis**:

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

1. **Relevance and Admissibility**:

- Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines "relevancy of facts" and states that evidence may be
given of facts that are relevant to the issue in question. Therefore, evidence relating to facts-in-issue is
generally admissible if it is relevant and tends to prove or disprove those facts.

2. **Burden of Proof**:

- Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue. Therefore, parties are allowed to adduce evidence to prove the facts that they are
required to establish to succeed in their case.

3. **Cross-Examination and Contradiction**:

- Sections 137 to 166 of the Indian Evidence Act provide for the examination, cross-examination, and re-
examination of witnesses. Parties have the opportunity to elicit evidence from witnesses and challenge the
evidence presented by the opposing party, including evidence relating to facts-in-issue.

**Case Law**:

In *R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra* (AIR 1973 SC 157), the Supreme Court of India held that evidence
must be confined to the points in issue. The court emphasized that the purpose of evidence is to prove or
disprove the facts that are directly in dispute and relevant to the determination of the case.

However, while evidence of facts-in-issue is generally admissible, it is subject to rules of relevancy,

admissibility, and credibility. Parties must ensure that the evidence they present is legally permissible and
reliable. Additionally, courts have the authority to exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly
prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. Therefore, while evidence of facts-in-issue is essential for
the resolution of legal disputes, its presentation and evaluation must be conducted within the framework of
established legal principles and procedures.

2) Define “Evidence”. What are the different kinds of evidence?

"Evidence" refers to any information, whether oral, documentary, or physical, that is presented in a legal
proceeding to prove or disprove a fact. Evidence plays a crucial role in the administration of justice by

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

helping to establish the truth or falsity of claims made by parties involved in a case.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence is classified into various types:

1. **Oral Evidence**:

- Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act defines oral evidence as all statements which the court permits or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry.

2. **Documentary Evidence**:

- Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines a "document" as any matter expressed or described upon
any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be
used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.

- Sections 61 to 90 of the Indian Evidence Act govern the admissibility and proof of documentary evidence.

3. **Real Evidence**:

- Real evidence consists of tangible objects or physical exhibits presented in court to demonstrate the
existence or condition of a material fact. Examples include weapons, clothing, forensic samples, etc.

- While the Indian Evidence Act does not explicitly address real evidence, courts may admit such evidence
if relevant and properly authenticated.

4. **Hearsay Evidence**:

- Hearsay evidence is a statement made by someone other than the witness, which is offered as evidence of
the truth of the matter asserted therein.

- Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act excludes hearsay evidence, stating that oral evidence must be
direct and not hearsay.

5. **Opinion Evidence**:

- Opinion evidence consists of statements expressing the beliefs, judgments, or conclusions of witnesses
regarding matters within their personal knowledge.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

- Sections 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act govern the admissibility of opinion evidence.

These different types of evidence serve various purposes in legal proceedings and are subject to specific
rules and procedures outlined in the Indian Evidence Act.

3) Explain “Electronic evidence”

Electronic evidence refers to any information or data stored or transmitted electronically that is relevant to
a legal proceeding. With the proliferation of digital technologies, electronic evidence has become increasingly
important in modern legal practice, encompassing a wide range of digital materials such as emails, text
messages, social media posts, digital photographs, computer files, and metadata.

**Section**: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly address electronic evidence, as it was enacted
long before the advent of digital technologies. However, electronic evidence is generally admissible in Indian
courts under the provisions of the Act, particularly those related to documentary evidence and the
admissibility of computer-generated records.

**Case Law**:

In *State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu* (AIR 2005 SC 3820), commonly known as the "Parliament Attack
Case," the Supreme Court of India addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence. In this case, the
prosecution relied on intercepted phone calls and emails as electronic evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused in connection with the 2001 Parliament attack.

The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic evidence, like any other form of evidence, must meet the
requirements of relevancy, authenticity, and admissibility. The court held that electronic evidence is admissible
if it is relevant to the issues in the case, can be authenticated to establish its accuracy and reliability, and
complies with procedural requirements.

The court further stressed the need for caution in admitting electronic evidence, considering the potential
for tampering, manipulation, or fabrication. It emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of
electronic evidence and ensuring that proper procedures are followed to collect, store, and present it in court.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

This case underscores the evolving legal framework for electronic evidence in India and highlights the
challenges and considerations involved in its admissibility and authentication in legal proceedings.

4) Explain Character when relevant in civil and criminal cases?

In both civil and criminal cases, the character of a party or witness may be relevant under certain
circumstances. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides provisions regarding the admissibility of evidence
relating to character in both types of cases.

**Section**: Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of character in civil cases, while
Section 54 addresses the relevancy of character in criminal cases.

1. **Character in Civil Cases**:

- Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act states that in civil cases, the fact that the character of any person
concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to them is relevant. In other words,
evidence of a person's character may be admissible if it tends to make certain conduct by that person more
or less probable.

2. **Character in Criminal Cases**:

- Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of character in criminal cases. It states
that in criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person has a good character is relevant. However, it
also provides that the fact that the accused person has a bad character is not relevant, except insofar as it
may affect the assessment of the probabilities of the case.

**Case Law**:

In *R v. Muralidhar* (AIR 1947 PC 67), the Privy Council addressed the relevancy of character evidence in
criminal cases. The case involved a charge of murder against the accused, and the prosecution sought to
introduce evidence of the accused's bad character to establish his propensity to commit the crime. The Privy
Council held that evidence of the accused's bad character was inadmissible unless the accused had put his
character in issue by adducing evidence of his good character. This case illustrates the principle that evidence

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

of bad character is generally inadmissible in criminal cases unless the accused has made their character an
issue in the case.

In summary, while evidence of character may be relevant in both civil and criminal cases, its admissibility and
weight depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. In
criminal cases, evidence of good character of the accused may be admissible, while evidence of bad character
is generally inadmissible unless the accused has made their character an issue in the case.

a. Explain the law relating to proof of attested documents.

The law relating to the proof of attested documents is governed by Sections 68 to 71 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. These sections outline the requirements for proving the authenticity and execution of documents
that require attestation.

**Section**: Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act pertains to the proof of execution of documents required
by law to be attested.

**Key provisions**:

1. **Proof of Attestation**:

- Section 68 states that if a document is required by law to be attested, it must be proved that it was
attested by the witness(es) whose attestation is required. The signature of the attesting witness(es) must be
proved, either by calling them as witnesses or by other evidence if they are dead or unable to be found.

2. **Presumption as to Attestation**:

- Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a presumption as to attestation. It states that if a
document appears to have been attested, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that it was
attested by the persons required to attest it.

3. **Proof of Signatures**:

- Section 70 deals with the proof of signatures and handwriting of attesting witnesses. It states that the

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

signature and handwriting of the attesting witness may be proved in the same manner as the signature and
handwriting of any other witness.

4. **Presumption as to Documents 30 years old**:

- Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a presumption as to documents 30 years old. It states
that documents more than 30 years old are presumed to be genuine and correctly executed unless proved
otherwise.

**Case Law**:

In *R. Nagasiva Rao v. Y. Sadasiva Rao* (AIR 1977 AP 242), the Andhra Pradesh High Court discussed the
requirements for proving attested documents. The court emphasized the importance of proving the execution
of the document and the attestation of witnesses, particularly when the attesting witnesses are not available
to testify in court. The court held that it is essential to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the
attestation to ensure the admissibility and reliability of the document as evidence.

This case underscores the significance of complying with the requirements of Sections 68 to 71 of the Indian
Evidence Act when proving attested documents in legal proceedings. It highlights the need to establish the
execution and attestation of documents through proper evidence to ensure their admissibility and probative
value in court.

b. Explain the rules regarding Hearsay Evidence. State the exceptions thereto, if any.

Hearsay evidence refers to statements made by a person who is not present in court and is offered as
evidence of the truth of the matter asserted therein. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contains provisions
regarding hearsay evidence, primarily under Sections 60 to 65.

**Section**: Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses hearsay evidence.

**Rules regarding Hearsay Evidence**:

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

1. **Admissibility**:

- Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct. In other
words, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions.

2. **Exceptions**:

- While hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, there are exceptions under which it may be admissible:

a. **Dying Declaration**: Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act provides that statements made by a
person who is dead, relating to the cause of their death or circumstances of their death, are admissible as
evidence if they were made under the belief of certain death.

b. **Statement against Interest**: Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act allows statements against the
interest of the maker to be admitted as evidence if the maker is dead or cannot be found, and the statement
was made under circumstances indicating its truthfulness.

c. **Statement in Course of Business**: Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act allows statements made
in the ordinary course of business to be admitted as evidence if they were made by a person who had a duty
to make the statement and if the statement relates to a matter of business.

d. **Res Gestae**: Statements made by a person as part of the res gestae, or the circumstances
surrounding an event, may be admissible as evidence if they are sufficiently closely connected to the event
and made under the influence of it.

e. **Admissions**: Statements made by a party to the proceeding, either expressly or impliedly, may be
admissible against that party as an admission.

**Case Law**:

In *Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan* (AIR 1973 SC 1059), the Supreme Court of India discussed the
admissibility of hearsay evidence in the context of a dying declaration. The court held that a dying declaration
is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act if it is made
by the deceased under the consciousness of impending death and relates to the cause of death or the
circumstances surrounding it.

This case highlights the importance of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule and the need to ensure
that hearsay evidence meets the requirements for admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

c. "Oral evidence in all cases must be direct". Explain this rule with illustration and

exceptions.

The rule that "oral evidence in all cases must be direct" is enshrined in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. This provision sets forth the principle that oral evidence, i.e., testimony given by witnesses orally in
court, must be based on the personal knowledge or perception of the witness regarding the facts in question.

**Explanation of the Rule**:

1. **Direct Testimony**:

- Direct testimony refers to evidence given by a witness based on their firsthand observation or perception
of the events or facts at issue in the case. The witness recounts what they personally saw, heard, or
experienced.

**Illustration**:

- In a theft case, a witness who saw the accused stealing the item from the victim's house provides direct
evidence by testifying about what they observed firsthand.

**Exceptions**:

While Section 60 mandates that oral evidence must be direct, there are exceptions to this rule where hearsay
evidence, or statements made by persons not present in court, may be admissible:

1. **Dying Declaration** (Section 32(1)):

- Statements made by a person who is dead, relating to the cause or circumstances of their death, are
admissible as evidence if made under the belief of certain death.

2. **Statement against Interest** (Section 32(2)):

- Statements against the interest of the maker, made by a person who is dead or cannot be found, may be
admissible if the circumstances indicate their truthfulness.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

3. **Statement in Course of Business** (Section 32(3)):

- Statements made in the ordinary course of business by a person who had a duty to make the statement
and which relate to a matter of business may be admissible.

**Illustration of Exception**:

- In a murder trial, if a witness heard the victim uttering "I was attacked by X" before succumbing to their
injuries, the statement may be admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence
Act.

**Conclusion**:

The rule that oral evidence must be direct emphasizes the importance of firsthand observation and personal
knowledge in legal proceedings. However, certain exceptions allow for the admission of hearsay evidence under
specific circumstances where its reliability and trustworthiness can be reasonably established.

d. Explain in detail different types of communications.

In the context of evidence law, different types of communications can have varying degrees of admissibility
and relevance in legal proceedings. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, recognizes various categories of
communications, each with its own rules and principles governing admissibility and evidentiary value. Below are
some of the main types of communications:

1. **Oral Communications**:

- Oral communications refer to spoken words or statements made by individuals. These can include
conversations, verbal agreements, confessions, and declarations.

- Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct, meaning
that witnesses must testify based on their personal knowledge or perception of the facts in question.

2. **Written Communications**:

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

- Written communications encompass any form of communication conveyed through written or printed words,
such as letters, emails, contracts, memos, and notes.

- Sections 61 to 90 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with the admissibility and proof of documentary
evidence. Documents may be admissible if they are relevant to the issues in the case and satisfy the
requirements of authenticity and reliability.

3. **Electronic Communications**:

- Electronic communications involve the transmission of information electronically, including emails, text
messages, social media posts, and digital documents.

- While the Indian Evidence Act does not specifically address electronic communications, courts may admit
electronic evidence if it meets the requirements of relevancy, authenticity, and admissibility under the Act.

4. **Professional Communications**:

- Professional communications refer to communications between individuals and professionals, such as

lawyers, doctors, clergy, and counselors, made in the course of seeking or providing professional advice or
assistance.

- Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for privileged communications between clients and their
legal advisers, protecting such communications from disclosure without the client's consent.

5. **Official Communications**:

- Official communications involve communications made by or to government officials, public servants, or

other official entities in the course of their duties or responsibilities.

- Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for privileged communications between public officers,
protecting such communications from disclosure without the proper authority.

**Case Law**:

One notable case regarding communications is *State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu* (AIR 2005 SC 3820). In
this case, intercepted phone calls and emails were relied upon as electronic evidence to establish the guilt of
the accused in connection with the 2001 Parliament attack. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of
ensuring the authenticity and admissibility of electronic evidence and stressed the need for proper
procedures to collect, preserve, and present such evidence in court.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

Understanding the different types of communications and their respective legal principles is essential for
effectively presenting and evaluating evidence in legal proceedings.

Situational Questions

a. Raj was arrested by police for the murder of Shyam. The Police officer who was to

interrogate him was very strict and well – built. Fearing that he would be beaten, Raj

said to the police Officer – “I murdered Shyam with a knife. I have kept the knife in

my house. Take me there and I shall show it to you.”

i. Is this Confession by Raj valid? Why?

ii. Is any part of the confession valid? Explain with proper reason.

i. The confession made by Raj to the police officer may not be considered valid under the law. According to
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible in court
if it appears to have been caused by inducement, threat, or promise, under circumstances suggesting that the
person making the confession did so because they believed it would be rendered worthless if they did not
confess. In this scenario, Raj's confession appears to be made under duress or fear of physical harm, as he
feared being beaten by the police officer. Therefore, the confession may be considered involuntary and thus
not valid.

ii. However, the part of the confession where Raj mentions the location of the knife may still be admissible as
evidence. According to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a fact is discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of an offense while in custody of a police officer, and such
information leads to the discovery of material evidence, then such information and the material evidence
discovered as a result of it may be admissible in court. In this case, if the police officer, upon Raj's
information, goes to Raj's house and discovers the knife as stated, the fact of the discovery of the knife may
be admissible as evidence in court, even if Raj's confession itself is not admissible.

b. X is accused of Murder. X alleges that he committed murder of Y under grave and

sudden provocation from Y.

i. On whom shall the Burden of Proof lie in this scenario?

ii. State the relevant provision of law to this effect. What would be the impact if

X fails to prove the element of Grave and Sudden Provocation?

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

i. In this scenario, the burden of proof would lie on X to establish the defense of grave and sudden
provocation. X must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they were provoked by Y to commit the murder
and that the provocation was grave and sudden enough to deprive them of the power of self-control.

ii. The relevant provision of law pertaining to this defense is Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
According to Section 105, the burden of proving the existence of any fact lies on the person who asserts the
affirmative of the issue. In this case, X asserts that they were provoked by Y under grave and sudden
provocation, so it is X's burden to prove this fact.

If X fails to prove the element of grave and sudden provocation, the defense would not be established, and X
would not be entitled to claim the defense of provocation. As a result, X could be convicted of murder if the
prosecution proves all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without the defense of
provocation, X's actions would be assessed based on the standard elements of the offense of murder,
including the presence of intention or knowledge to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

c. A witness, about whom, nothing is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit?

i. Is this question allowed? Explain with reason.

ii. Explain relevant provisions under Evidence Act regarding asking such kinds of

questions.

i. No, asking a witness at random whether they are a dacoit is not allowed. Such a question is improper and
objectionable. It violates the principles of fairness, relevance, and dignity of the witness. The question is
highly prejudicial and assumes guilt without any basis. It can also intimidate or harass the witness, undermining
the integrity of the legal process.

ii. The relevant provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding asking such kinds of questions are:

a. **Section 146**: This section deals with questions that are improper and that the court may disallow. It
states that the court may disallow any question that it considers to be indecent, scandalous, insulting, or
intended to insult or annoy the witness.

b. **Section 151**: This section empowers the court to question witnesses. It states that the court may, in
its discretion, ask any questions of a witness to ascertain or elucidate any fact or to discover relevant facts.

c. **Section 153**: This section prohibits the asking of questions that are intended to insult or annoy a
witness. It states that the court shall forbid any questions that it considers to be scandalous or indecent or
that it considers to be intended to insult or annoy the witness.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

d. **Section 154**: This section provides for the reprimand of witnesses who refuse to answer questions or
who give false answers. It states that if a witness, upon being required to answer a question, refuses to
answer or gives an answer that the court considers to be false, the court may, after warning the witness,
attach a penalty to the witness's refusal or false answer.

These provisions emphasize the importance of maintaining decorum, fairness, and respect for witnesses
during legal proceedings. Asking improper or offensive questions not only violates the law but also undermines
the credibility and integrity of the legal process. Therefore, such questions should be avoided, and the court
has the authority to intervene and disallow them if necessary.

A) “M” a public servant asked for (demanded) a bribe money from “X”. On the basis of the

information given by “X”, the anti - corruption bureau laid a trap. “M” was caught red-handed

while accepting the bribe from “X” in the presence of “Y” and “Z” Panch witnesses. In this situation “Y” turned
hostile and “Z” was not traceable for givingevidence in court

i) What is evidence value of “Y” hostile witness.

ii) Can “X”, “Y” and “Z” be regarded as accomplices.

i) In this situation, the evidence value of "Y" as a hostile witness would be limited. While "Y" may have
originally been expected to provide testimony supporting the prosecution's case, their decision to turn hostile
means that their credibility and reliability as a witness may be called into question. The court may still
consider any earlier statements made by "Y" to law enforcement or during the investigation, but their
demeanor and testimony in court may not be given much weight.

ii) "X", "Y", and "Z" cannot be regarded as accomplices based solely on the information provided. An
accomplice is someone who voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime, usually as a partner in the
offense or as an accessory before or after the fact. In this scenario, "X" is the victim of bribery, "Y" and "Z"
are Panch witnesses who were present during the trap laid by the anti-corruption bureau. There is no
indication that any of them were involved in the commission of the bribery offense. However, if there is
evidence to suggest that "Y" or "Z" were somehow complicit in the bribery scheme, their status as accomplices
would need to be determined based on the specific facts and circumstances of their involvement.

B) In a rape and murder case, the post-mortem report stated that there was commission of assault

on the “Girl” before her death. But the doctor who examined her forgot to mention the injury

and the word sexual assault or rape in his report. In this situation

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

i) Can the statement of doctor who his explained his version in detail and his reason for

omitting the minute details in post-mortem report be relied upon

ii) What is the evidence value of the medical officer and can the accused be convicted

based on this statement

i) The statement of the doctor explaining his version and reasons for omitting minute details in the post-
mortem report may be considered by the court. The doctor's explanation could provide context and
clarification regarding the discrepancies in the report. However, the court will assess the credibility and
reliability of the doctor's statement, taking into account factors such as the consistency of the explanation,
the doctor's expertise, and any corroborating evidence.

ii) The evidence value of the medical officer's statement would depend on various factors, including the
credibility of the doctor, the consistency of the explanation provided, and any corroborating evidence. If the
court finds the doctor's statement to be credible and the explanation for the omission of details in the post-
mortem report is reasonable, the statement may carry weight as evidence. However, whether the accused can
be convicted based solely on this statement would depend on the overall evidence presented in the case,
including other testimonies, forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the credibility of witnesses. The
court would need to evaluate all the evidence in its entirety to determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

C) A Prisoner was charged with man-slaughter over killing a person by driving over him. “Mr.

X” who was passing by happened to be a chance witness who saw the vehicle driven by at a

very rapid speed,but did not see the accident. Immediately after, on hearing the victim groan,

he went up to him and asked him what was the matter. The victim before dying made a

statement to “X” as to the cause of the injury and also described the vehicle that knocked him,

but before he could describe the driver he died. In this situation

i) Can the statement made by the victim to “Mr. X” be considered as a dying

declaration?

ii) Can “Mr. X” be considered as a chance witness? Who is a chance witness?

i) Yes, the statement made by the victim to "Mr. X" can be considered as a dying declaration. A dying
declaration is a statement made by a person who is in imminent danger of death, and such statement relates
to the cause of their death or the circumstances surrounding it. In this case, the victim, while in the throes of
death, made a statement to "Mr. X" regarding the cause of his injury and described the vehicle that knocked

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

him. Since the victim's statement was made under the belief of certain death and pertained to the cause of
his injury, it meets the criteria of a dying declaration and can be admissible as evidence in court.

ii) Yes, "Mr. X" can be considered as a chance witness. A chance witness is someone who happens to witness an
event purely by coincidence or accident, without any prior knowledge or expectation of witnessing it. In this
scenario, "Mr. X" was passing by and happened to witness the vehicle driven at a very rapid speed. He did not
see the accident itself but became involved afterward upon hearing the victim groan. Therefore, "Mr. X"
qualifies as a chance witness since he stumbled upon the scene of the accident by chance and was not actively
seeking to witness it.

a) A witness during examination-in-chief forgets the statement given to the police due to

lapse of time.

i. Can the witness refresh his memory?

ii. What will the prosecutor do if the witness turns hostile?

i) Yes, the witness can refresh their memory. Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a witness to
refresh their memory by referring to any document or other thing that they have used to refresh their
memory while giving evidence. The witness may be allowed to look at the statement given to the police or any
other document or object that helps them recall the relevant information accurately.

ii) If the witness turns hostile, meaning they refuse to testify truthfully or provide evidence that is favorable
to the prosecution, the prosecutor may take several steps. They may cross-examine the witness to challenge
their credibility and impeach their testimony. The prosecutor may also bring to the attention of the court any
prior statements made by the witness that are inconsistent with their current testimony. Additionally, the
prosecutor may request the court to declare the witness as hostile, which could allow the prosecutor to ask
leading questions during cross-examination to elicit more favorable responses. Ultimately, the prosecutor will
aim to undermine the witness's credibility and bolster the prosecution's case through other evidence and
witness testimony.

b) P was accused of murdering her nephew. She was sent to police custody and then was

taken for medical examination. At the time when she was being examined by the doctor, P

confessed to the doctor that she murdered her nephew. The policeman who brought P was

standing outside the medical examination room and overheard this -

i. Is the confession made by P to the doctor admissible in evidence? State your answer with

proper reason.

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

ii. Explain the binding effect of such confession on P.

i. The confession made by P to the doctor is not admissible in evidence. According to Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, confessions made to police officers or while in police custody are generally inadmissible in
court. While the confession was not made directly to a police officer, the policeman who overheard the
confession was standing outside the medical examination room, and thus, P was effectively still in police
custody at the time of making the confession. Therefore, the confession would be deemed to have been made
while in police custody and would fall under the purview of Section 25, rendering it inadmissible in court.

ii. Since the confession made by P to the doctor is inadmissible in evidence, it cannot have a binding effect
on P in the court of law. Without admissible evidence, the prosecution would need to rely on other evidence to
establish P's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. P's confession to the doctor, although made, would not have any
legal significance in the proceedings, and P cannot be convicted based solely on that confession. The
confession would not be considered as evidence against P, and she would retain the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence presented in court.

c) Genuineness of a signature on a document was in dispute. Parties produced evidence and

the written report of the handwriting expert but did not examine the handwriting expert.

i. Whether the oral examination of the handwriting expert is mandatory?

ii. Whether the court declare the document as forged document only on the basis of expert’s

opinion?

i. The oral examination of the handwriting expert is not mandatory. While it is common practice for parties to
examine expert witnesses orally to clarify their findings and opinions, there is no strict requirement under
the law for oral examination. The written report of the handwriting expert, along with any other evidence
presented, can be sufficient for the court to assess the genuineness of the signature on the document.

ii. The court may consider the expert's opinion in determining the genuineness of the signature on the
document, but it is not bound to declare the document as forged solely based on the expert's opinion. The
court will assess the expert's report along with other evidence presented, such as witness testimonies,
circumstantial evidence, and the overall context of the case, before making a decision. The expert's opinion is
just one piece of evidence, and the court will evaluate its weight and credibility in light of the entire case.
Therefore, the court may declare the document as forged if the expert's opinion is supported by other
evidence and if it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the signature is indeed forged.

d) Mohan an adopted son of Radhaben files a suit against Kantilal the brother of deceased

Radhaben claiming that his deceased mother had left all her property for him and he is the

Chetan Chavan
 Law of Evidence previous year questions

only successor to the intestate property. Kantilal denies the fact of Mohan’s lawful adoption.

Mohan wants to file a suit for declaration of successor and title to the suit property.

i. Is the suit maintainable?

ii. On whom does the burden of proof lies and why?

i. The suit for declaration of successor and title to the suit property filed by Mohan is maintainable. Mohan, as
the adopted son of Radhaben, has legal standing to assert his claim to the intestate property left by
Radhaben. Since Kantilal denies the fact of Mohan's lawful adoption, it becomes necessary for Mohan to seek a
declaration of his status as Radhaben's adopted son and his entitlement to her property.

ii. The burden of proof lies on Mohan to establish his lawful adoption and his entitlement to Radhaben's
property. As the plaintiff bringing the suit, Mohan has the burden of proving the facts essential to his claim,
including the fact of his adoption by Radhaben. The adoption must be proved by producing relevant evidence,
such as adoption deeds, witnesses, or any other documentary evidence establishing the adoption. Since Kantilal
denies the fact of Mohan's lawful adoption, Mohan bears the burden of proving his adoption and his right to
inherit Radhaben's property as her adopted son.

Chetan Chavan