Evidence

PART A
1. "Admission cannot be proved by or on behalf of the persons making it". Explain this principle
outlining its exceptions.=

Introduction
The provisions related to Judgments of Court when Relevant are covered under Part II
of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Section 15 to Section 21 of BSA covers all the provisions related to admissions under BSA.
Admission
Admission plays a very important role in judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other
proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier.
The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a
particular fact".
In BSA, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense. It deals with admissions by
statements only oral or written or contained in an electronic form. But an Admission must be clear,
precise and not vague or ambiguous.
Definition of Admission
Admission is defined under Section 15 of BSA as a statement made by witnesses which shows
inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact in a case.
According to Section 15, admission can be in the form of a document, oral statement or may be
contained in an electronic form.
Parties who can Make the Admissions
According to Section 16 of BSA, the following parties can make admissions:
Admission by Parties to Proceeding:
The term ‘parties’ not only means the persons who appear on the record in that capacity but also
includes those persons who are parties to a suit without appearing.
Persons who have an interest in the subject matter of the suit but are not parties on the record are
also considered as parties in the proceedings and their statements.
Admission by Agent:
The statements made by an agent in a suit would be admissible as against the person he is
representing.
The statements made by an agent are, however, binding only when they are made during the
continuation of his agency.
Statements made in Representative Character:
When a person such as trustees, administrators, executors etc., sue or are sued in a representative
character.
Any statement made by them will only be admissible if made in their representative character. Any
declarations made by them in their personal capacity will not be taken as an admission.
Persons interested in the Subject-matter:
In any such suit where several persons are interested jointly in the subject-matter of the suit, then
any admission made by anyone of the parties will be taken as an admission against himself as well
as the other parties jointly interested in the subject matter.
Persons from whom the Parties derive Interest:
Any statement made by the predecessor-in-title from whom the party to the suit derives his title
will be admissible.
But this will only be held as an admission if the predecessor-in-title made the declaration while still
holding the title and not after the title has been transferred.
The statement made by the former owner will not be considered as an admission as against the
parties if it was made title has been passed.
Section 17-18 of BSA
Section 17-18 of BSA provides an exception to the general rule that is mentioned under Section 16.
Section 17 and Section 18 are exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 16. Under this
section the parties to the proceeding may use the statement of a third person.
If the statement of third person contained an admission against his own interest and could have
been used against him if he sued or was sued in connection with matter involving the position or
liability affected by that admission.
Admissions by Persons whose Position must be proved as against party to suit: (Section 17)
This section of BSA as in general it refers to third party who makes statement against himself when
it affects his position.
It is taken under admission only when the position is proved as against the party to the suit and the
third party still exists at the time of the suit.
Illustration:
A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that
rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant
fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
Admissions by Persons Expressly referred to by Party to Suit: (Section 18)
Section 18 of BSA states the admissions made by any person expressly referred to by party to suit.
This section states, any statements made by a person to whom a party to the suit has expressly
referred for facts in respect to a matter in dispute are referred to as admissions. This section also
brings an exception to the general principle of admissions which are made by strangers.
Illustration:
The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about
it" C's statement is an admission.
Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on their Behalf (Section 19)
Admissions are relevant against the person making it and against his representatives but not
otherwise.
But there is an exception to this general rule as:
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature
that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under
section 26
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a
statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the
time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its
falsehood improbable
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than
as an admission.
Illustrations:
The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is
genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may
prove a statement by A that deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the
deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show that the ship was
taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his
business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him Admissions by persons whose
position must be proved as against party to suit. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by
party to suit. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf. from day
to day and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these
statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under clause
(b) of section 26.
A is accused of a crime committed by him in Kolkata. He produces a letter written by himself and
dated at Chennai on that day, and bearing the Chennai post-mark of that day. The statement on the
date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under clause (b) of
section 26.
A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing they were stolen. He offers to prove that he refused
to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because
they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit currency which he knew to be
counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skillful person to examine the currency as he
doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was
genuine. A may prove these facts.
When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents are Relevant (Section 20)
This section states that oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant.
If the party proposing proves that the oral admissions shows that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the
genuineness of a document produced is in question.
Admissions in Civil Cases When Relevant (Section 21)
In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence
of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties
agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
This section is further explained under an explanation as, nothing in this section shall be taken to
exempt any advocate from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give
evidence under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 132.
Conclusion
Admission refers to revealing information or acknowledging guilt. Any party to the proceedings of a
matter, their representative, and in some cases third parties as well, may make an
admission. Admissions may be voluntary or involuntary. Admissions can either incriminate or
exonerate.

2.Discuss about presumptions laid down under Section Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB) regarding
the legitimacy of a child.

2. What is meant by public and private documents? Explain the presumption as to the public
documents under the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB).

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, categorises documents into public and private documents. This
classification significantly impacts how documentary evidence is treated in legal proceedings. This
article delves into the definitions and implications of public and private documents under the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
3. Introduction
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), also known as the Indian Evidence Act, plays a critical role
in the Indian legal system by governing the rules related to evidence.This legislation establishes a
system for determining the admissibility and relevance of evidence in civil and criminal matters.The
importance of evidence in legal proceedings cannot be overstated, as it serves as the foundation
upon which legal decisions are made. The Act is designed to ensure that evidence presented in
court is relevant, reliable, and obtained through proper channels.
In today’s fast-evolving legal landscape, the distinction between public and private documents has
become increasingly significant. As the nature of information recording and storage has evolved
with technology, so too have the implications for how evidence is handled in court. Understanding
these distinctions is crucial for legal professionals to effectively manage and present evidence,
ensuring that justice is served.
4. Definition of a Document Under Evidence Law
Document defined under Section 2(d), of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) previously defined
under Section 3(e) of the Indian Evidence Act “ “document” means any matter expressed or
described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any
other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for
the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records.”
Inclusion of Electronic and Digital Records:The updated definition of a document now explicitly
includes electronic and digital records. This means that any information captured electronically—
whether through computers, smartphones, or other digital devices—is considered a document.
Expansion of Recording Methods:The revised definition broadens the scope of recording methods
beyond traditional letters, figures, or marks. It now covers any form of recording, including audio
and video recordings, and other methods of capturing information.
Clarification of Purpose:While both definitions refer to the purpose of a document in recording
information, the updated definition explicitly incorporates electronic and digital formats. This
ensures that these formats are included in the definition, despite their non-physical nature.
Inclusion of “Otherwise Recorded”: The updated definition adds the phrase “otherwise recorded,”
reflecting a wider range of recording methods. This addition acknowledges various unconventional
ways of recording information, ensuring they are also included under the definition.
For example, emails, digital contracts, and online records are now standard forms of
documentation. The expansion to include these formats ensures that the legal system can
adequately address contemporary practices. The inclusion of electronic records also reflects a shift
towards accommodating modern technological advancements and the increasing reliance on digital
platforms for information storage and exchange.
5. Documentary Evidence Under the Evidence Act
Documentary evidence is a critical component of the legal process, providing support for claims and
defences in court. It includes a wide variety of materials, from traditional paper documents to
digital records. The evolution of the definition of evidence under Section 2(e) of the BSA reflects an
adaptation to technological changes.
Documentary evidence is a critical component of the legal process, providing support for claims and
defences in court. It includes a wide variety of materials, from traditional paper documents to
digital records.
Previously, the legal framework primarily focused on oral testimony and physical documents.
However, the inclusion of electronic records and digital communications recognises the significant
role these formats play in modern legal proceedings. Digital evidence, including text messages,
social media posts, and emails, is crucial for substantiating claims and verifying facts.
This expansion ensures that all relevant forms of evidence are considered, providing a more
comprehensive approach to handling evidence in the digital age. Legal professionals must be adept
at managing and presenting such evidence, ensuring that it meets the standards for admissibility
and reliability.
6. Public Documents
Public documents are a cornerstone of evidence law due to their official nature and presumed
accuracy. These documents are created and maintained by public authorities and officials, and their
reliability is generally accepted by the court.
Examples include:
Government Records: These include official gazettes, legislative records, and public registers, which
are created by government bodies and reflect official actions and decisions.
Judicial Records: Court orders, judgments, and other judicial records maintained by the judiciary fall
under this category, reflecting the decisions and proceedings of the court.
The presumption of accuracy attached to public documents means they are generally admissible in
court without requiring additional proof. However, this presumption can be rebutted by presenting
strong evidence to the contrary. The legal system relies on the credibility of these documents to
ensure that the evidence presented is both reliable and relevant.
In the case of Narayan Bhagi Rath Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1998) 8 SCC 204, the Supreme Court
emphasised the legal presumption attached to public documents and how they are presumed to be
true unless rebutted by strong evidence.
7. Private Documents
Private documents, in contrast to public documents, are created by private individuals or entities
and do not carry the same presumption of accuracy. These documents must be authenticated to be
admissible as evidence. Examples include:
Contracts:Agreements between private parties that outline the terms of their relationship and
obligations.
Letters and Communications: Correspondence between individuals or organisations that may
provide evidence of agreements, intentions, or communications.
The necessity of proper authentication for private documents ensures that they are genuine and
reliable. This process entails confirming the document’s source and ensuring the correctness of its
content.The requirement for authentication helps prevent fraud and ensures that only credible
evidence is presented in court.
In Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao (1971) 1 SCC 545, the Supreme Court stressed
the necessity of proper authentication for private documents to establish their credibility as
evidence in court.
8. Distinctions Between Public and Private Documents
Understanding the distinctions between public and private documents is essential for handling
evidence in legal proceedings:
Authentication:Public documents require minimal authentication due to their official nature,
whereas private documents need thorough verification to establish their credibility.
Presumptions:Public documents carry a legal presumption of truth, meaning they are accepted as
accurate unless proven otherwise. Private documents lack this presumption and require additional
proof to be considered valid evidence.
Admissibility:Public documents are generally admissible without further proof, reflecting their
reliability and official status. Private documents, on the other hand, require proof of their
authenticity to be accepted in court.
These distinctions impact how evidence is evaluated and presented, influencing the strategies
employed by legal professionals in court.
9. Case Laws
In Shahzadi Begum v. Shah Khatoon (1982) 2 SCC 319, this case clarified the standards for
admissibility of public and private documents and highlighted the importance of understanding
their distinct characteristics in legal proceedings.
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import (1981) 1 SCC 80, the court addressed the proper
standards for admitting private documents and emphasized the burden of proof required for their
authentication.
10. Conclusion
The distinction between public and private documents under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
(BSA) is crucial for the effective use of evidence in legal proceedings. Public documents, due to their
official nature, are afforded a presumption of truth, reducing the need for additional proof. In
contrast, private documents require thorough authentication to establish their credibility.
Understanding these distinctions helps legal professionals navigate the complexities of evidence
law, ensuring that evidence is properly managed and presented in court. The updated definitions
and inclusions in the BSA reflect the evolving nature of information and communication, addressing
the challenges posed by technological advancements.
Embracing these changes allows the legal system to uphold its integrity and guarantee that justice
is delivered effectively in a progressively digital era.The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides a
robust framework for evaluating and handling evidence, reinforcing the importance of accurate and
reliable documentation in the judicial process.

3. Define the term 'Evidence'. Discuss various kinds of evidences underBharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023
(BSB).

Introduction
Sir Taylor described the law of evidence as a way through which argument to prove or disprove any
issue of fact. The truth of which is given to judicial investigation.
Evidence is an important aspect of any case in a court of law because every allegation or demand in
court has to be supported by some evidence otherwise it will be considered baseless. The word
‘Evidence’ has derived from the Latin expression ‘Evidens Evidere’ which means the state of
evidence being plain, apparent, or notorious.
In India, different forms of evidence are presented in court daily and the area of evidence law is
governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1882. However, one may wonder what might be the true
meaning of evidence and what are the main types of evidence presented in court.
Concept of evidence law
If one analyses the word ‘evidence’, it will simply mean the state of being evident. But this meaning is
applied to things that intend to provide evidence or give proof about something.

English law
According to English Law, the term ‘evidence’ can even mean the words spoken and things exhibited
by the court witnesses. However, it can also signify the facts proved to exist by those words or things
and is ultimately chosen as the conclusion over other facts that were not sufficient enough to be
proved. Also, evidence can be deduced to assert that a certain fact is relevant to the matter that is
under inquiry.
Indian law
However, in Indian law, evidence has been given a more definite meaning and is used only in its first
sense. Thus going by the act, it can be concluded to say that the word ‘evidence’ means only those
instruments through which suitable and appropriate facts are brought before the Court and by the
help of which the Court is convinced of these facts. Therefore, even matters other than the
statements of witnesses and documents provided for the inspection of the Court like any confession
or statement of any accused person in the course of a trial.
Also, it should be noted that statements given by parties when examined otherwise than as
witnesses, the demeanour of the witnesses, consequences of the local investigation or inspection,
and material objects other than documents such as weapons, tools, stolen property, etc, will not be
considered evidence according to the definition of evidence given under Indian law.
Nonetheless, these matters are legitimately taken into consideration by the Court. The definition of
‘evidence’ should be read together with the definition of ‘proved’ and the merged result of these
two definitions are considered for ascertaining a fact to be evident to the case. However, these are
not the only things courts take into consideration when forming their conclusions. A statement that is
being recorded under Section 39 of the Act, is not considered evidence within the purview of the
Act. So even a confession given by an accused will not be considered evidence in the ordinary sense of
the term. Even the entire evidence produced or stated by hostile witnesses are not excluded
completely by the Court.
The court of law has wide powers when it comes to recognizing the powers of the appellant in a case.
Court has full authority to review the whole evidence. It is within the powers of the court through the
entire evidence and relevant circumstances to reach its conclusion about the conviction or innocence
of the accused person.
Definition of evidence in the Indian Evidence Act
According to section 2of the Evidence Act 1872, evidence means and includes:
All such statements which the court allows or needs to be presented before it by the witnesses in
connection to matters of fact under inquiry. These statements are termed as

oral evidence.
All such documents including any electronics record, presented before the court for inspection. These
documents are termed as documentary evidence.

Types of Evidence
According to the definition given in the Indian Evidence Act, evidence can be divided into
two categories:
Oral Evidence;
Documentary Evidence.

It should be noted that evidence can be both oral and documentary and also, electronic records can
be presented in the court as evidence, which means that even in criminal cases, evidence can be
presented by way of electronic records. This shall include video-conferencing.

Oral and documentary evidence can be divided into two categories:

Direct or primary;
Indirect or hearsay or secondary.

There is also a category of real or material evidence, which is supplied by material objects for
inspection of the Court such as a stolen good or the weapon of offense.
Oral Evidence
Oral evidence renders to the evidence that is mainly words spoken by mouth. It is adequate to be
proved without the support of any documentary evidence, provided it has credibility.
Primary oral evidence is the evidence that has been personally heard or seen or gathered by the
senses of a witness. It is called direct evidence as defined by sec 5 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Indirect or hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in a court of law as the person reporting the
facts is not the actual witness of the facts in issues. However, there are some exceptions made in the
case of hearsay evidence where it is admissible in a court of law. section 58 of the Indian Evidence
Act, states the exceptional cases of hearsay evidence.
Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence is the evidence that mentions any issue described or expressed upon any
material by way of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of the ways which can be used for
recording the issue. Such evidence is presented in the form of a document to prove a disputed fact in
court.
Primary documentary evidence includes the evidence that shows the original documents as
mentioned in Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is
the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain
circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Direct or primary evidence
Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in
issue. Direct evidence directly proves a fact or disapproves of the fact by its virtue. In the case of
direct evidence, a particular fact is accepted directly without giving any reason to relate to the fact.
One does not even need to point out the illustration provided as the evidence given by the witness in
the court of law is the direct evidence which is sufficient enough to prove the matter as against the
testimony to a fact proposing guilt.
Also, at times the rule of best evidence plays an important part in upholding direct evidence in a court
of law. The rule of the best evidence is a rule of law that only includes the primary evidence in itself. It
states that if evidence such as a document or a recording is presented in the court then only the
original ones will be admissible unless there is a reason for not using the original one in the court.
Indirect evidence
Indirect evidence is that evidence which proves the facts in question by giving other facts that are
indirect evidence and afterwards, proving their relevance to the issue. The deduction that can be
drawn is from such evidence by connecting a series of other facts to the facts in question. These
indirect facts must have been related to the facts in question and have a cause and effect connection.
Direct evidence is used in two senses:
As against hearsay evidence
According to this opposition, direct evidence is the evidence given by a fact that is sensed by a witness
with his senses or an opinion held by the witness whereas hearsay evidence is the evidence that what
some other person has told the witness to have seen or heard by the other person. This
differentiation can be noticed in Section55 of the Indian Evidence Act, where the word ‘direct’ is
used in contradistinction with the term ‘hearsay’ evidence.
As against circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence is that evidence which goes expressly to the very issue in question and which, if
believed will prove the fact in question without needing any help from any reasoning for example
evidence such as the testimony of an eye-witness to murder, whereas circumstantial evidence will not
prove the issue in question but it ascertains the point only by inference or reasoning.
For example, the evidence of the fact that a person had a motive to murder another individual and at
the time of the murder the person was seen with a dagger, going towards the place of the murdered
individual and shortly afterwards, was seen returning from that very place in blood-stained clothes,
would be called as indirect or circumstantial evidence.
Difference between direct and circumstantial evidence
As per Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence may be presented in a court proceeding of the
existence or non-existence of facts in issue and of such other facts that are considered relevant by the
Act. If the presented evidence relates directly to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue then
the evidence will be considered direct, but if the evidence relates to the existence or non-existence of
only a relevant fact then it will be considered as indirect or circumstantial evidence. However, direct
evidence as understood by this section should not be confused as defined in Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act. According to Section 60, the word ‘direct evidence’ is used as opposed to ‘hearsay
evidence’ and not in contradistinction to ‘circumstantial evidence’ and thus, going by the section,
circumstantial evidence should always be direct as in the facts from which the existence of the fact in
issue is to be established have to be proved by direct evidence and not by any hearsay evidence.
For establishing proof by circumstantial evidence, four things are required:
All the facts should be consistent with the theory.
The circumstances from which the inference for the theory was drawn, should be fully established.
The circumstances should be of a decisive nature.
The circumstances should serve to mean and prove only the theory proposed to be proved and should
not entertain any other theory.
It is recommended to use both the direct and circumstantial evidence to prove a theory that is in
question in a court of law and no theory prevents the use of both the rules of law in a case.
And also because using the powers of both circumstantial and direct evidence can have a
considerable effect in restricting the dishonest parties from tampering with witnesses and any other
means of witness. It would have been possible for them to distort the evidence if they had
knowledge.

Powers of written evidence

Section 144
Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the evidence as to matters in writing. This section
states that under the section, a witness who is being examined can be asked whether any agreement,
grant, or any other disposition of property as to which the witness is disposing of was not included in
the document. When the witness responds to the question affirmatively or when the witness is about
to give any statement as to the contents of such a document which in the judgment of the court have
to be presented before the court, the opposite party in the case has a right to object to such evidence
being presented before the document itself is produced or the proper establishment is laid for the
objective of proving the contents of the document by way of any secondary evidence.
Section 144 permits a witness to present oral evidence of statements made by any other individual
about the contents of a document if such statements are in itself relevant facts.
For example, if it is alleged that A has assaulted B and C, a witness testifies that he has heard A to say
that the B had sent a letter accusing A of committing a murder and A will take revenge from B. This
statement given by C about the contents of the letter can be proved even if the letter is not presented
since the statement is relevant enough to show A’s motive for assaulting B as per Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
Section 145
According to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, a witness can be cross-examined as to
the previous statements made by the witness in writing or deduced in the form writing and on
relevant matters in question, without showing the witness any such writing or as of that matter
proved to before him but if it is meant to contradict the witness by the writing, the witness’s attention
should, before the writing can be proved, be called to those portions of the writing which are to be
used for contradicting the witness.
Generally, what happens is that the contents of a writing are not used as evidence until and unless
the writing itself is produced in the court. But section 145 makes an exception in this case as it states
that a witness can be cross-examined as to prior statements made by the person in writing or reduced
in writing and on the relevant matters in question without showing such writing to the witness or
being proved.

5.Write about the relevancy of the motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct to a fact
in issue.

6. What is 'res judicata? When is the judgment relevant under Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)?
Introduction
Section 5 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides that evidence may
be given only of fact in issue and relevant fact.
Section 34 to Section 38 of BSA deals with relevancy of judgments.
This was earlier contained in Section 40 to Section 44 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
Types of Judgment
There are two types of judgment:
Judgment in Rem: When a judgment is applicable to the entire world and does not only remain
between two parties.
Judgment in Personam: When a judgment is applicable only between two parties.
Section 34 of BSA
Section 34 of BSA provides that previous judgments that bar a second suit or trial are relevant.
Section 34 of BSA provides:
The existence of any judgment, order or decree of a competent Court.
Which by law prevents the Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding trial.
Such a judgment is a relevant fact.
When the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold trial.
Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) contains the rule of res judicata which
bars the suit or litigation of the same issue between the same parties.
Further, Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and Section
300 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) lays down the principle of double
jeopardy.
The object of Section 34 of BSA is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
This is contained in Section 40 of IEA.
Section 35 of BSA
Section 35 of BSA provides for relevancy of certain judgments in certain jurisdictions.
Section 35 (1) of BSA applies to judgments delivered in following jurisdictions:
Probate
Matrimonial
Insolvency
Admiralty
The judgments mentioned above:
which confer upon or
take from any person any such character or
be entitled to a particular thing
not as against a specified person but absolutely.
Shall be relevant when
The existence of any legal character or the title of any such person to any such thing is relevant.
Section 35 (2) provides that such judgment, order or decree shall be conclusive proof as to the
following:
Any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came
into operation.
Any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the
time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person.
Any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such
judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease.
Anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time
from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.
This Section was earlier contained in Section 41 of IEA.
Section 2 (b) of BSA defines “conclusive proof” as
When one fact is declared as conclusive proof of another by this Adhiniyam.
The Court shall on proof of one fact.
Regard the other as proved.
And shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
Section 36 of BSA
Section 36 of BSA deals with relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees other than those
mentioned in Section 35 of BSA.
Section 36 of BSA states:
Judgements, orders and decrees other than those mentioned in Section 35 are relevant
If they relate to matters of public nature relevant to the enquiry
But such judgment, order or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.
This Section was earlier contained in Section 42 of IEA.
Section 37 of BSA
Section 37 of BSA provides that the judgments other than those mentioned in Section 34, 35 and 36
of BSA are irrelevant unless:
The existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other
provision of the Adhiniyam.
This Section was earlier contained in Section 43 of IEA.
Section 38
Section 38 of BSA provides that fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of Court
may be proved.
Section 38 of BSA provides that any party to a suit or proceeding may show that any judgment, order
or decree which has been proved by the adverse party was
Delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it.
Was obtained by fraud.
Was obtained by collusion.
This Section was earlier contained in Section 44 of IEA.
Conclusion
BSA is the legislation that provides for facts that are relevant and hence can be proved. Section 34 to
Section 38 of BSA provides for judgments that are relevant. Thus, for the judgments falling under
these provisions evidence can be given.

7."Secondary evidence can be permitted to be adduced only after non-production of primary

evidence is satisfactorily accounted for" - Examine the circumstances.

8.Explain the stages of examination of witnesses and when leading questions may be asked.

9.Examine the maxim "Omnio presumuntur rite esse acta" with reference to the documents.

10.Critically analyse the protection guaranteed under the Constitution of India with respect to
evidence of admission and confession with relevant cases.

11.Define evidence and discuss about its classification with suitable illustrations.

12.Enumerate the circumstances which the court may presume existence of certain facts. Analyse the
illustration provided under the provision of law.

13.Compare and analyse the evidentiary values of admission and confession with suitable
illustrations.

14.Enumerate the circumstances when facts need not be proved.

15. Define Estoppel and examine the application of estoppel in Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB).

Introduction
The word ‘estoppel’ is derived from the French word ‘estoupe’ which means ‘stopper’. The term
‘estoppel’ was adopted by the English Jurisprudence for the purpose of shutting the mouth of a
person who are pleading the contrary of a fact or state of thing which he has formerly asserted by
words or conduct.
The rule of estoppel is based on the maxim “allegans contraria non est audiendus” that means a
person alleging contrary facts should not be heard.
The object of estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between parties by promotion of honesty
and good faith.
Section 121 to 123 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with estoppel.
Section 121 lays down the general rule whereas Section 122 and 123 deals with special instances of
estoppel by agreement.
Essential Elements
In order to bring a case within the scope of Section 121 BSA, following things are necessary:
One party should make a representation to the other party about an existing fact as distinct from a
mere promise.
The representation must be made with the intention to be acted upon.
The other party should accept and rely upon the aforesaid factual representation i.e. there must have
been belief on the part of that other.
There must have been action arising out of the belief i.e. the representation must have been acted
upon.
Types of Estoppel
Estoppel by Matter of Record
Estoppel by record is estoppel of the parties from reopening and relitigating the matter which has
been finally settled between them by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Estoppel by record is covered under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(CPC) and Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
This type of estoppel is also known as estoppel by judgment.
Estoppel by Deed
When a party has entered into a solemn engagement by deed as to certain facts, neither he nor
anyone claiming through or under his is permitted to deny such facts.
There is no estoppel where the deed is affected by fraud or illegality.
Estoppel in Pais or by Conduct
In pais means “before the public” and estoppel in pais is also freely translated as estoppel in pais is
also freely translated as estoppel by conduct/ representation.
Estoppel by conduct can arise either from:
a contract or
de hors (outside) a contract by unilateral statements, acts or omissions which induce another party to
believe and act on that belief.
Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover on a promise made without a
formal contract if they have relied on that promise to their detriment.
It is an equitable remedy to prevent injustice that can arise when one party relies on the promise of
another.
Essential of Promissory Estoppel
For promissory estoppel to apply, certain elements must be satisfied:
Clear and Definite Promise: There must be a clear and unequivocal promise made by the promisor.
Reliance by the Promisee: The Promisee must have reasonably relied on the promise.
Detriment: The reliance must have caused a detriment or harm to the Promisee.
Injustice if Not Enforced: It must be shown that it would be unjust not to enforce the promise.
Exceptions to Estoppel under Indian Evidence Act
No estoppel where truth is known
A person having knowledge of facts cannot take advantage of the principle of estoppel.
No estoppel in case of mistake
Where both parties acted under common misapprehension, there could be no estoppel until the
position is cleared up.
No estoppel in case of mere promise to do something
A mere promise to do something in future will not create an estoppel
When both parties plead estoppel
If both parties establish a case for application of estoppel, then the parties are set free and the Court
will have to proceed as if there is no plea of estoppel on either side.
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Negligence on the part of other party
If there is a fraud on the part of the other party, which could not be detected by the promisor with
ordinary care, the estoppel will not operate.
Mere attestation will not create an estoppel
Attestation does not involve the witness of any knowledge of the contents of the deed, it can at the
best be used for the purpose of cross-examination, but it will neither create estoppel nor imply
consent.
No estoppel against a Statute or Law
There can be no estoppel on a point (pure question) of law or on a settled proposition of law or to
defeat the provisions of a valid law.
No estoppel against sovereign acts in public interest
There cannot be any estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its sovereign, legislative and
executive functions.
Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession:
The underlying policy under Section 122 of BSA, 2023 is that the tenant/licensee obtaining possession
is deemed to obtain it upon the terms that he will not dispute the title of the owner/licensor who
gave it to him and without whose permission he would not have got it.
A tenant/licensee cannot be permitted to deny the title of his landlord/licensor.
Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee:
Section 123 of BSA, 2023 deals with further instances of estoppel by agreement
It deals with estoppel in respect of movable property and is applicable to:
An acceptor of a bill of exchange
Bailee
A licensee
Case Laws
Tata Iron and steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2000):
The Supreme Court succinctly laid down the essential principles for constituting the doctrine of
estoppel.
Pickard v. Sears (1837)
The doctrine of estoppel was founded in this case.
The Court defines estoppel as a principle which prohibits a person from denying what was earlier said
by him in the Court.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Estoppel serves as a vital tool in ensuring justice and equity in legal proceedings. It
prevents parties from engaging in unfair practices by holding them to their previous statements or
conduct. This principle not only upholds the integrity of legal interactions but also promotes trust and
reliability in various contractual and relational dealings. Understanding and applying estoppel can
significantly impact the outcomes of legal disputes, making it an essential concept in Indian law.

16."Oral evidence must be direct; except the contents of documents" - Examine.

16. What is Burden of proof? State the instances under which the burden of proof lies under
Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB).

Burden of Proof: An Overview

The burden of proof is a fundamental principle in legal proceedings that determines which party is
responsible for proving the facts in a case. This principle is essential in both civil and criminal law, as it
establishes the obligation of a party to present evidence to support their claims or defenses. The
burden of proof can be understood through various sections of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (BSB), particularly Sections 104 to 108.
Definition and Importance
The term "burden of proof" refers to the obligation of a party to prove their assertions in court. The
Latin maxim "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" translates to "the burden of proof lies on
the one who asserts, not on one who denies." This principle ensures that parties who seek legal
remedies must substantiate their claims with evidence.
Key Points:
Criminal Cases: In criminal law, the prosecution carries the burden to prove the accused's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil Cases: In civil law, the claimant must prove their case on a balance of probabilities (more likely
than not).
Sections Relating to Burden of Proof in BSB
Section 104: Burden of Proof as a Matter of Substantive Law
This section states that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no further evidence
were presented. Essentially, this means that if one party makes a claim, they must provide sufficient
evidence to support it.
Example: In a theft case, if the prosecution claims that A stole B's property, it is up to the prosecution
to prove that A committed the theft.
Section 105: Onus of Proof
Section 105 addresses situations where the burden may shift during a trial. Initially, the party making
an assertion has the burden of proof. However, once they establish a prima facie case, the burden
may shift to the opposing party to rebut that evidence.
Example: If A claims self-defense in a battery case, A must initially provide evidence supporting this
claim. Once A does so, the burden may shift to the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
Section 106: Particular Fact
This section stipulates that when a person wishes to prove a particular fact, the burden lies on them.
This is particularly relevant when dealing with specific allegations or defenses.
Example: If A claims he was not at the scene of a crime, he bears the burden of proving his alibi.
Section 107: Fact Necessary for Evidence Admissibility
Under this section, if a party wishes to introduce evidence regarding another fact, they must first
prove any fact necessary for that evidence to be admissible.
Example: If A wants to introduce documents as evidence in court, he must first establish their
authenticity.
Section 108: Accused Falls Within Exceptions
This section states that when an accused person is charged with an offense and there are specific
circumstances indicating their involvement (such as being present at the crime scene), the burden
may shift to them to prove their innocence or lack of involvement.
Example: If A is found at a crime scene with stolen goods, A may need to provide evidence explaining
his presence and possession.

KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962), Nanavati was charged for the murder of Prem
(the deceased defendant). Nanavati claimed the defense of grave and sudden provocation. The
Supreme Court, in this case, held that, as per general rule, there is a presumption of innocence in the
favour of the accused and the prosecution has to prove the legal burden

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)

The accused Kali Ram was charged in the Court of Sessions Judge for an offense under Section
302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Dhianu and his daughter Nanti. He was also
charged for the offense of robbery.
Justice Thomas in the case of State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Omar (2002) has explained
the need to change the outlook of this concept. According to him, the traditional approach that the
burden of proof will always lie upon the prosecution would only benefit the accused of the heinous
crimes and would create casualties for the society

18.Discuss the provisions of the examination of witness under Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB).

19."The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill is that part of the law of procedure which decides:-(a) What facts may
and may not be proved in; (b) What sort of evidence must be given of a fact which may be given; (c)
by whom and in what manner the evidence must be produced by which any fact is to be proved" -
Comment.

20.Explain the admissibility of confessions by accused persons in criminal cases with decided cases.

21.What privileges can be claimed by the following persons when called as witness?(a) Magistrate
and Judges; (b) Married persons; (c) Legal professionals.

22.Explain the circumstances under which oral evidence is admissible to clear up ambiguities in
documents

23. Explain the various privileged communications protected under the IBharatiya Sakshya Bill,
2023 (BSB), and the exceptions to such protections with suitable case laws.
Introduction
Privileged communications refer to interactions that are protected from being disclosed in court
proceedings. Communications between spouses, public officials, judges and magistrates, professionals
and their clients are categorised as privileged under certain circumstances.
Privileged communications are of two kinds, namely those which are privileged from disclosure and
those which are prohibited from being disclosed.
Section 128 to section 134 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with
privileged communication by declaring certain exceptions to the general rule.
Communication During Marriage: Section 128
Section 128 of BSA protects communications between spouses during marriage.
It prohibits any person who is or has been married from being compelled to disclose any
communication made to them by their spouse during marriage.
The privilege commences from the date of marriage of the spouses.
Communication made after the dissolution of marriage is not protected under this section.
Protection when not Available: Exceptions to Section 128
Consent (Waiver of Privilege):
Evidence of a privileged communication can be given by a spouse with the express consent of the
party who made the communication or with the consent of his representative in interest. This is
known as waiver of privilege.
Communication made before marriage or after its dissolution:
Any communications made by the spouses before their marriage or after dissolution of marriage, are
not protected under this section.
Proceedings inter parties (Suit or Criminal proceedings between the two spouses):
The object of section 128 is to preserve the mutual confidence between both spouses, but when the
spouses are themselves litigate against one another then the section does not apply.
Conducts/acts apart from communications:
The ban of Section 128 is confined to “Communications” only.
Only communications are protected from disclosure but not the acts/conduct.
Proof of communication by third person:
The privilege under this section operates only against the husband or wife but not against third
person.
Neither the husband nor the wife can be compelled to give evidence about matrimonial
communications, but nothing prevents a third person from giving evidence of such communication
between them.
Privilege as to Affairs of State: Section 129
Section 129 protects unpublished official records relating to state affairs.
It restricts individuals from giving evidence derived from such records without the permission of the
head of the department concerned.
Privilege as to Official Communication: Section 130
As an extension of the principle of Section 129, this section provides for the privilege of protection of
confidentiality of official communications between public officials.
It states that no public officer shall be compelled to disclose such communications if they consider
that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
This provision ensures that public officers can perform their duties without the fear of sensitive
information being exposed.
Privilege as to Information as to Commission of Offences: Section 131
Section 131 states that no magistrate or police officer shall be compelled to disclose the source of
information regarding the commission of an offence if the disclosure would cause harm to the
informant or other persons.
This section aims to protect informants and encourage the reporting of crimes without fear of
retribution.
Privilege to Professional Communications: Section 132 to 134
Professional Communications: Section 132
Section 132 protects communications between an advocate and their client.
It prohibits advocates from disclosing any communication made to them in the course of their
employment by or on behalf of their client.
Exception to the privilege under Section 132
Illegal Purpose (Proviso 1): Communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose are not
protected.
Crime/fraud since employment began (Proviso 2): If an advocate finds iin the course of his
employment that any crime/fraud has been committed since the employment began, he can disclose
such information.
Disclosure with client consent: Such communications can be disclosed with the client's express
consent.
Advocate’s suit against client: If the advocate himself sues the client for his professional services, he
may disclose so much of the information as is relevant to the issue.
Information falling into hands of third persons: This prohibition works against the advocate, but not
against any other person.
Documents already put on record: No privilege is available in respect of such documents.
Joint interest: No privilege attaches to communication between solicitor and client as against persons
having a joint interest with the client in the subject-matter of communication.
Privilege not Waived by Volunteering Evidence: Section 133
Section 133 explains that the privilege provided in Section 132 cannot be waived by volunteering
evidence of the client. The privilege belongs to the client and therefore he alone can waive it.
That privilege is not lost by calling the advocate as a witness, unless the party having the privilege
questions him relating to confidential matters.
The object of section 133 is to protect the client and to save the integrity of the legal profession.
Confidential Communications with Legal Advisors: Section 134
Section 134 protects confidential communications between individuals and their legal advisors.
It provides that no one shall be compelled to disclose to the court any confidential communication
with their legal advisor unless they offer themselves as a witness.
The privilege aims to encourage full and frank communication between clients and their legal
advisors, which is essential for effective legal representation.
Case Laws
Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954):
The Supreme Court held that ordinary conversations or letters relating to business should not be
regarded as privileged.
M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnam (1970):
The Supreme Court held that even though a spouse is debarred from deposing to the contents of such
correspondence, the same can be proved by a third person.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975):
The Supreme Court held that, the Court will proprio motu exclude evidence the production of which is
contrary to public interest.
Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1996):
The Court held that, if a telephonic conversation between an accused and his/her spouse is
intercepted by the police, the police may be permitted to prove such a communication.
Conclusion
Privileged communications are a fundamental aspect of the BSA, reflecting the balance between the
necessity of evidence in legal proceedings and the protection of confidential communications in
specific relationships. The provisions within the Act carefully delineate the scope and limitations of
these privileges to uphold both transparency in the judicial process and the privacy of sensitive
interactions.

24.Explain the Doctrine of Estoppel. Can there be estoppel against a minor?

"Facts hereinafter declared to be relevant"-Examine and elaborate this statement.

25.Define the term "Evidence" and discuss the various divisions of evidence under the Bharatiya
Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)

24."Acts done by anyone of the conspirators in reference to the common intention are considered in
law to be the acts of all" - Discuss the principle.

26.Define the term 'Admission. Whose admission could be relevant under the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill,
2023 (BSB)?

27.Define Confession and differentiate it from Admission under the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023
(BSB).

28.Discuss about the effect of evidence on burden of proof.

29.Define oral and documentary evidence. Examine the evidentiary value of documentary evidence.
30.Critically examine the hierarchical position of examination of witnesses under the Bharatiya
Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB).

31. What is a Dying Declaration? Explain when it is relevant and Admissible?

Section 26(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) talks about dying declaration .It’s a
statement made by a person who is dead or resulted in the cause of his death or which resulted in his
death due to any circumstances of transaction i.e in cases in which the person’s death comes into
question.Section 26(a) of BSA ,makes such statements relevant,whether the maker of the statement
was or was not under the expectation of death at the time when it was made.
The Dying Declaration under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) is an exception to the rule of
Hearsay Evidence due to necessity and is admissible.It is also called as ‘Necessity Rule or Nisi’ .Dying
Declaration is indicated in the legal maxim, ‘Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’ which means no
person will die with a lie on his lips.Under this section, following are the essentials:-
Statement of a person who is dead
Statement may be verbal written or by gestures
Should relate to cause of death or circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death
Expectation of death not necessary
Statement relevant when cause of death is in question
Dying Declaration in BSA is considered as a substantive piece of evidence.Dying Declaration made
under Section 26 of BSA is subject to control of Section 161 of BSA.It is admissible even if it made to a
police officer.To decide the reliability of Dying Declaration, following guidelines needs to be
considered,they are:-
It should be true and voluntary .It can form a sole basis of conviction without any corroboration by
independent evidence.
It should not be tutored,prompted or imaginary.
If suspicious , it should not be acted upon without proper corroboration.
It Suffers from infirmity ,cannot form the basis of conviction.
If More than one statement, one first in point of time must be preferred.
From the point of view of the declarant,the Dying Declaration in evidence must be complete.If while
making some statements he dies in the middle and the statement remains incomplete,it will not be
relevant.(Earlier under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act,1872)
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACT BY PERSON WHO IS DEAD OR CANNOT BE FOUND IS RELEVANT
(SECTION 26 OF BSA)
Key Components
(a)Cause of Death -Statement of a person about the cause or circumstances of his death is considered
relevant where question arises regarding his death cause, even if they didn’t expect to die when
making the statement.
(b)Ordinary Course of Business -Statements made by a person in the regular course of business
activities are considered relevant. Like,entries of business records, acknowledgments of receiving
money or goods, or use of documents for business transactions.
( c)Against Personal Interest – Making a statement by a person that goes against their financial or
property interests, or could expose them to criminal prosecution, such statement is considered
relevant.
(d)Public Rights or Customs – Giving an opinion on public rights, customs, or matters of general
interest, which is made before any dispute which arose, is relevant.
(e)Family Relationships – Any Statements about family relationships like blood, marriage, or adoption
are treated relevant if that person had special knowledge regarding these relations and made them
before any dispute arose.
(f)Family Documents -Any Statements about family relationships found in wills, deeds, family
pedigrees, or inscriptions or family portraits are considered relevant if made before any dispute arose.
(g)Legal Documents -Statements made relating to any legal documents like deeds or wills that relate
to a transaction in question are treated relevant.
(h)lCollective Statements – Statements made by a group of people expressing feelings or impressions
on any matter, is relevant.
Exceptions
Under specific legal conditions only these statements are considered relevant. If the person is alive
and available, the statement might not be taken into consideration and will not be admitted. The law
strictly limits their use in situations where the person is genuinely not available.
Examples
If B murdered A. A made a statement about his murder before dying, his statement would be relevant
in finding the cause of A’s death.(Cause of Death)
A surgeon who died,had a diary that included an entry about delivery of a baby on a particular date.
This entry could be relevant in finding the birth date of that baby.(Business Records)
A person who died left a letter which acknowledges a receipt of rent for a property. This letter is
relevant in proving whether rent was paid or not.(Financial Interests)
A dead village headman’s statement regarding a road that it is public could be relevant in finding out
the road’s legal status.(Public Rights)
A letter from a father who died announcing the birth of his child on a particular date is relevant in
finding out he child’s birth date.(Family Relationships)
Why is this Important?
To understand a legal case,it is very crucial to understand the relevance of these statements.
They help in determining that no important information is lost when a person is not available, helping
bridge gaps in evidence and pursue justice.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA) allows statements from persons who are dead, missing, or
not available to be used as evidence under specific conditions, for justice and fairness in legal cases,
even when the person cannot testify.

32. Discuss about the Evidentiary Value of a hostile witness in the light of a leading decision.
A party generally during a trial cannot cross-examine their own witness.But under certain
circumstances, Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) allows this practice. This
section of BSA grants the court the power to allow a party to question their own witness as if they
were the opposing party.
What is a Hostile Witness ?
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) does not specifically define a Hostile Witness. A Hostile
Witness is mainly identified by their conduct, demeanor, or hesitance to disclose the truth, which
shows an unfriendly disposition toward the party calling them. It’s important to see that a witness
isn’t hostile automatically just because their testimony doesn’t support the calling party’s case.
( Earlier under Section 154 of IEA)
Determining Hostility
Hostility is presumed from answers of witnesses and their demeanor, showing a negative or hostile
mindset toward the party that called them.
Cross-Examination Of One’s Own Witness
Section 157(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 ( BSA) permits a party, with the permission
of the court, to cross-examine their own witness in a way similar to cross-examining an adverse
witness. This includes-
leading questions (Section 146 of BSA),
contradicting previous statements (Section 148 of BSA), and
testing the witness’s veracity (Section 149 of BSA)
Reasons For Cross Examination Of One’s Own Witness
This appears when a witness, who is expected to give evidence supporting a particular set of facts,
acts as if he does not remember those facts or gives testimony contrary to expectations. Such
witnesses are considered as hostile or adverse witnesses. Cross-examination becomes important to
clarify or challenge their testimony.
Evidentiary Value Of Hostile Witness Testimony
A Hostile Witness’s testimony is a complicated consideration under the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam,2023( BSA). It includes:
Cross-Examination :- A party has the right to cross-examine a hostile witness, which can be precious
for challenging their credibility and clarifying their testimony.
Credibility Assessment :– The court considers the full testimony of a hostile witness, including the
hostile portions, while assessing the credibility of a witness and the weight to be given to their
statements.
Impeachment of Witness :- The hostile testimony can be used to weaken the credibility of a witness ,
indicating bias or unreliability.
Corroboration :- Corroborative evidence may be needed to support critical aspects of a hostile
witness’s testimony.
Limited Evidentiary Value :- Courts treat with caution hostile witnesses testimony, given the witness’s
apparent bias or change in stance during the trial.
Case-Specific :-The value of a hostile witness’s testimony differs based on the different circumstances
of each case.
Key Components
Court’s Discretion: The decision to permit such questioning is with the court. The party cannot itself
cross-examine their own witness; they need permission of a court.
Relying on Testimony: Even if a party questions their own witness as if they were the opposing side,
they are still permitted to rely on parts of the witness’s testimony that support their case.
Exceptions
There are no automatic rights given to a party to cross-examine their own witness. Permission is only
given in cases where the court thinks it is necessary, usually when the witness turns hostile or gives
unexpected testimony.
Examples
In a criminal case, a witness who was anticipated to support the defense all of a sudden gives
testimony in favor of the prosecution. With the permission of the court, the defense can cross-
examine this witness to challenge their statements.
Why is This Important?
Section 157 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) ensures fairness by permitting
parties to challenge their own witness if their testimony injures the case unexpectedly. It controls
unfair disadvantages caused by unreliable or hostile witnesses.
The evidentiary value of a Hostile Witness’s testimony is not discarded but is subject to careful
examination by the court. The court considers factors such as credibility, corroborative evidence, and
the overall context of the trial when assessing the weight to be given to the hostile witness’s
testimony. The treatment of Hostile Witnesses is case-specific, and their testimony can influence the
result depending on the specifics of the situation.

33.What is meant by Public and Private documents? Explain the presumption as to the Public
Documents under the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)?

34.Define fact? Explain when is a fact said to be proved, disproved and not proved.
Explain the role of motive, preparation and conduct in determining a relevant fact.

35. Define admission and confession and point out the differences between them.

Admission
Admission plays a very important role in judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other
proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier.
The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a
particular fact".
In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense. It deals with
admissions by statements only oral or written or contained in an
electronic form.
But an Admission must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous.
Definition of Admission:
Admission is defined under section 17 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 as a statement made by
witnesses which shows inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact in a case.
According to this Section, Admission can be in the form of a document, oral statement or may be
contained in an electronic form.
According to Section 18 following parties can make the admissions:
Admission by parties to proceeding
The term ‘parties’ not only means the persons who appear on the record in that capacity but also
includes those persons who are parties to a suit without appearing.
Persons who have an interest in the subject matter of the suit but are not parties on the record are
also considered as parties in the proceedings and their statements.
Admission by agent
The statements made by an agent in a suit would be admissible as against the person he is
representing.
The statements made by an agent are, however, binding only when they are made during the
continuation of his agency.
Statements made in Representative Character
When a person such as trustees, administrators, executors etc., sue or are sued in a representative
character.
Any statement made by them will only be admissible if made in their representative character. Any
declarations made by them in their personal capacity will not be taken as an admission.
Persons interested in the Subject-matter
In any such suit where several persons are interested jointly in the subject-matter of the suit, then any
admission made by anyone of the parties will be taken as an admission against himself as well as the
other parties jointly interested in the subject matter.
Persons from whom the Parties derive Interest
Any statement made by the predecessor-in-title from whom the party to the suit derives his title will
be admissible.
But this will only be held as an admission if the predecessor-in-title made the declaration while still
holding the title and not after the title has been transferred.
The statement made by the former owner will not be considered as an admission as against the
parties if it was made title has been passed.
Section 19-20:
Section 19 -20 provides exception to the general rule that is mentioned under Section 18.
Section 19 and Section 20 are exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 18. Under this
section the parties to the proceeding may use the statement of third person.
If the statement of third person contained an admission against his own interest and could have been
used against him if he sued or was sued in connection with matter involving the position or liability
affected by that admission.
Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit: (Section 19)
This section of the Indian Evidence Act as in general it refers to third party who makes statement
against himself when it affects his position.
It is taken under admission only when the position is proved as against the party to the suit and the
third party still exists at the time of the suit.
Illustration
A undertakes to collect rents for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies
that C did owe rent to B.
Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit: (Section 20)
Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states the admissions made by any person expressly
referred to by party to suit.
This section states, any statements made by a person to whom a party to the suit has expressly
referred for facts in respect to a matter in dispute are referred to as admissions. This section also
brings an exception to the general principle of admissions which are made by strangers.
Illustration
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it" C's statement is an admission.
Effects of Admission
Section 31 says that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may
operate as Estoppel under the provision of this Act.
The provision is further supplemented by Section 58 under which it is provided, "Facts admitted need
not to be proved."
It says that no facts need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties hereto or their agent
agreed to admit at the hearing or which, before the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under
their hands.
An admission being not conclusive proof of the fact admitted, evidence can be given to disprove it.
But until evidence to the contrary is given and admission can safely be presumed to be proved.
Confession
The term confession nowhere defined in the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
The confession is a statement made by the person charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to
any fact in issue or as to relevant fact. The inference that the statement should suggest that he is
guilty of a crime.
Meaning of confession
The expression confession means a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. It is an
admission as to the commission of an offence.
If a person accused of an offence makes a statement against himself, it is called confession or
confessional statement.
Confessions are a special form of admission. Thus, it is popularly said that "All Confessions are
admissions, but all Admissions are not confessions."
There are four kinds of Confession, are as follows:
Judicial confession
A Judicial Confession is that which is made before Magistrate or in a court due course of judicial
proceeding.
A Judicial Confession is relevant and is used as evidence against the maker provided it is recorded in
accordance with provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Extra judicial confession
An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a
person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate
seized of the charge against himself.
Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of
credibility.
Retracted confession
A retracted confession is a confession voluntarily made by a person and subsequently retracted.
The credibility of such a confession is a matter to be decided by the court according to the facts and
circumstances of each case
The retracted confession may also form the basis of conviction and punishment if it is believed to be
true and voluntary.
Confession by co accused (Section 30)
When more than one person is jointly tried for the same offense, then the confession statement of
one person bounds the other persons also. Such confession affects himself and other people who
have jointly committed the offense.
Illustrations
A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said – “B and I murdered C”. the court
may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
Inculpatory And Exculpatory Confession:
“Any evidence that is favourable to the accused in a criminal trial is considered exculpatory. And, any
evidence not favourable to the accused or in other words favourable to the prosecution is
inculpatory”
The confession where accused directly admits his guilt is referred as an inculpatory confession.
Exculpatory confession, on the other hand, is that confession which absolves the accused from his
liability. Only inculpatory confessions can be used as a substantive piece of evidence.
Relevant case laws
In Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor Lord Atkin defines confession as "A confession must either admit
in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An
admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a
confession.”
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two
scores.
Firstly, the definition of confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially
all the facts which constitute the offence.
Secondly, that a mixed-up statement which even though contains some confessional statement will
still lead to acquittal, is no confession.
Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or
offence, cannot amount to confession.
Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing wrong or relying on a part of the confessional
statement and rejecting the rest, and for this purpose, the Court drew support from English
authorities.
When there is enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the accused person’s statements, the
Court may rely on the inculpatory part.
Sahoo v. the State of U.P
A newly wedded women joined the new house of her husband and after some time the accused
murdered his daughter-in-law.
And after murdering her daughter-in-law he screamed “I have finished her” and in the course of his
statement many of his neighbours heard his statement stating “I have finished her”.
In this case, the court observed that the statements made by the accused should be considered as
confessions and they shall be regarded as confessionary in nature.
Difference between confession and admission
Confession refers to admitting guilt for a crime or wrongdoing, whereas admission refers to revealing
information or acknowledging guilt.
Confessions are made to authorities or in a legal setting, while admissions can take place anywhere.
Only the one who is accused can confess. Whereas any party to the proceedings of a matter, their
representative, and in some cases third parties as well, may make an admission.
Only in criminal proceedings is confession allowed. Whereas, in both civil and criminal proceedings,
admissions can be made.
Confessions are usually voluntary, whereas admissions may be voluntary or involuntary.
Confessions typically involve a sense of responsibility or remorse for the actions in question, making
them stronger forms of admission.
Depending on the circumstances, confessions and admissions can be admissible as evidence in a court
of law.
It is common for confessions to be made in writing or recorded, while admissions may be verbal or
nonverbal.
Confessions are self-incriminating statements, whereas admissions can either incriminate or
exonerate.

36. What is Res Gestae'? When is it relevant to the fact in -issue? Explain.

The most challenging aspect of criminal jurisprudence is determining what kind of evidence is
admissible in court as an evidence tool. One of the foundations of the law of evidence is Res Gestae.
The idea that all relevant elements of the chain of events are taken into consideration before the
court forms the basis of the Res Gestae theory, as part of the criminal justice system, makes its final
decision. This guarantees that no evidence is disregarded because of unrelated circumstances, even
though the details differ from every case to case.
what is res gestae in law of evidence?
The name Res Gestae is taken from Latin words that signify “things done.” Essentially, it is an
exception to the hearsay rule of evidence, which states that any statement other than one made by
the witness during oral testimony is not admissible.
According to the Indian Evidence Act, facts that are not in dispute but are sufficiently related to a fact
in dispute to constitute a part of the same transaction are relevant under Section 6 of the Act,
regardless of when and where they happened. This falls inside the res gestae domain.
res gestae example
The cry of an injured or wounded person.
The witness’s outcry upon witnessing a murder.
The sound of a bullet being fired.
The victim of the attack is wailing for assistance.
Motions made by the deceased, etc.
section 4of bsa
Section 4 of the bsa strengthens the concepts of Res Gestae. When a statement refers to a pertinent
fact or occurrence, it deals with the admissibility of statements made by a person who is deceased or
missing. The following are the main provisions:
Statement regarding Cause of Death: A person’s statements regarding the cause of their death or the
events that led up to it are acceptable sources of evidence.
Statement concerning Transactions, Matters, or Events: When the individual making the statement is
unable to be called as a witness, statements they make about any transaction, occurrence, or incident
pertinent to the case are admissible.
Statements Regarding Rights or Interests: When a witness is unavailable, statements that have an
impact on their legal rights or interests may be admitted.
Res Gestae Perspective: This section exemplifies the idea of Res Gestae since it permits the admission
of remarks made in the immediate aftermath of an incident, even in cases when the witnesses are
unable to appear in court.
Tests for Res Gestae
The first test states that if there is a causal relationship between a fact and the fact that is intended to
be submitted as evidence, or vice versa, then the fact in question may be deemed to be a part of the
same transaction as the other fact.
According to the second test, information related to close time and location would fall within this
category. Undoubtedly, events that occur around the same time and location might be considered
closely related and, thus, pertinent under this provision.
According to a third test, there should be a consistent goal and course of action between the fact that
is being contested and the fact for which proof is being sought. It is submitted that this is similarly
unworthy, only replacing one ambiguous term with another.
res gestae under Indian evidence act: Judicial Precedents
In the case of Gentela Rao and another v State of AP, the highest court ruled that the declaration has
to be made either just after or contemporaneously with the actions that make up the offense. The
declaration won’t, however, be included in res gestae if there is a gap, no matter how small, that was
adequate for fabrication.
In the case of Rattan Singh v State of HP, the victim was shot by the accused when she broke into her
home’s courtyard late at night. She knew exactly who he was. Before she passed away, she said that
the accused was in front of her, holding a gun. She described how close the attacker was to her in
both space and time. According to section 6, the statement was determined to be a component of the
transaction and pertinent as such.
Evidence is usually provided under res gestae when it cannot be presented under another section of
the Indian Evidence Act. The goal of the legislation was to stop injustice and cases that were
dismissed for lack of evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act’s Section 6 and Res Gestae are essential resources for maintaining the spirit
of unscripted statements made during court hearings. They offer a way to incorporate remarks made
right after an incident, improving the precision and comprehensiveness of the evidence. Deeply
rooted in equity and reliability, these laws play a major role in the Indian legal system’s pursuit of
justice.

38."When the facts not otherwise relevant, becomes relevant" - Examine.

39. What is meant by the 'best evidence rule"? How does it apply to document and oral evidence?
The "best evidence rule" is a legal principle that requires the original document or the most reliable ev
idence available to be presented in court when proving the content of that document. This rule is aim
ed at ensuring the accuracy and reliability of evidence, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation or alte
ration.

### Application of the Best Evidence Rule:

1. Documents:
- Under Section 62 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), primary evidence is defined as the origi
nal document itself. If a party wishes to prove the contents of a written document, they must produce
the original document unless it is shown to be lost or destroyed, or unless there are other valid reason
s for not producing it.
- If the original document is not available, secondary evidence (such as copies or oral testimony about
its contents) may be admissible under certain circumstances, as outlined in Sections 63 and 65 of the
BSA. However, secondary evidence is generally considered less reliable than primary evidence.

2. Oral Evidence:
- The best evidence rule primarily pertains to documentary evidence; however, when it comes to oral
evidence, witnesses should provide direct testimony regarding facts rather than relying on hearsay or
second-hand information.
- Under Section 60 of the BSA, oral evidence must be direct, meaning that witnesses should testify ab
out what they personally observed or experienced rather than what someone else told them.

### Conclusion:
The best evidence rule emphasizes the importance of presenting original documents to support claim
s in legal proceedings and encourages direct testimony in oral evidence. This principle helps maintain
the integrity and reliability of evidence presented in court, ensuring that decisions are based on accur
ate information.

40.Define confession and discuss the kinds and admissibility of confession with the help of decided
cases.

41.What are the rules relating to "Burden of Proof" under the India Evidence Act of 1872?

PART B
Who is an accomplice? Can one of the accused be a competent witness?
Discuss the object and scope of cross examination.
The rules of evidence in criminal and civil cases are generally the same.Discuss with exceptions.
What is leading question? State the order of examination of witnesses under Bharatiya Sakshya Bill,
2023 (BSB).
Explain the rules relating to burden of proof.
What is alibi? Discuss the factors considered for its validity under Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)
Facts might seem irrelevant at first glance but can become very important if they contradict other
important facts or make certain events more likely or unlikely.This is what Section 9 of The
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) talks about.(Earlier under Section 11 of Indian
Evidence Act,1872)
Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) tells,facts which are not otherwise relevant
becomes relevant.This can only be possible when –
facts are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
facts either by themselves or when they get in connection with some other facts they make the
existence or non existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) is based on the principle that the main
purpose of the trial is to prove or disprove the facts of the case ,by providing evidence of a particular
claim or charge and any fact which either disproves or tends to disprove that claim or charge will be
considered to be relevant under this section.
Facts inconsistent with fact in issue or relevant facts
The fact is said to be inconsistent with the other fact when it cannot co-exist with the other
facts .There are five classes of cases under this-
Alibi
Non access of husband with his wife to show illegitimacy of a child
Survival of alleged deceased
Crime committed by third person
Self infliction of harm
What is Plea of Alibi?
Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) is also known as ‘Plea of Alibi’.Alibi is a latin
word which means ‘elsewhere’.In other words it can be understood as, Plea of Alibi means physical
impossibility of the presence of a accused at the crime scene because of his presence at some another
place.This plea by the accused can only be successful when he proves that he was not present at that
particular place of the crime at that particular time. The Plea of Alibi is usually taken by the accused to
make the relevant fact under Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) .Plea is of the
absence of a person charged from the place of occurrence of offense at that time.
Plea of Alibi is a defense used by the person to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was happening . It’s somewhat like saying, “I was nowhere near the particular crime scene, so I
couldn’t have done it at all!”The Plea of Alibi is established by the accused.This section is also known
as the Residuary section.
Key Components of Plea of Alibi
They were somewhere else and nowhere near to the crime scene,when the crime happened.
It was highly impossible they could have committed the crime from where they were.
They have evidence to prove their absence from the crime scene.
Exceptions to Plea of Alibi
The Plea of Alibi is of no importance if :-
The accused can’t prove they were nowhere near the crime scene and somewhere else.
There might be a possibility , they could have committed the crime from where they were.
Examples
If someone is accused of committing an offense in Mumbai, but they were actually in Delhi at the time
of crime, that’s a strong alibi!
If an offense could have been committed by one of 5 people, and evidence shows it couldn’t have
been 4 of them, that makes it more likely the 5th person did the crime.
Why is this Important?
The Plea of Alibi under Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) plays an important
role because it helps to ensure that the accused is not wrongfully convicted for the crime.It gives
them a chance to prove their innocence by showing they were not present at the crime scene when
the offense happened and were somewhere else.

The Plea of Alibi under Section 9 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (BSA) is a very powerful
defense that can change the course of a case completely. By understanding how it works, we can
ensure justice is served fairly and the accused gets a proper chance to prove their innocence.

Explain the rules regarding retracted confession with decided cases.

"Primary evidence is a best evidence" - Critically examine.
State the facts which need not be proved.
Examine the evidentiary value of the opinion given by experts.
Define Res Gestae and examine the evidentiary part on facts forming part of same transaction.
Trace out the circumstances when a person cannot be called as witness and appreciation of
statement of those persons as evidence.
Analyse the facts that decide the legitimacy of a child.
Discuss about the application of burden of proof.
Examine the concept of 'presumption as to dowry death'.
Explain the concept of Test Identification parade with decided cases.
Explain the evidentiary value of Admission.
When the Third Person opinion is relevant?
What is dying declaration? Discuss the evidentiary value of dying declaration.
"The estoppel is the rule of evidence which precludes a party from gainsaying the truth of certain
fact". Examine.
What is leading question? Under which circumstances such question must be asked - Discuss.\
Explain the various kinds of examinations of witnesses under the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)
Enumerate the facts which need not be proved.
What are the various ways of impeaching the credit of witness?
Define the term "Accomplice"? Whether the accomplice evidence is trustworthy-Examine.
"Burden of Proof is the obligation that a party lies under to produce evidence to satisfy the court as to
the existence or non-existence of a fact" - Examine.
Enumerate the circumstances in which the secondary evidence of a document may be given.
Explain the following privileged communication.(A)Professional Commurication.(B)Communication
during Marriage.
Distinguish between Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence.
When the Forensic opinion of evidence shall be relevant under the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)
Examine and analyse the following presumption (a)May presume(b)Shall presume
Analyse about the evidentiary value of confession statement under theBharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023
(BSB)
Discuss about the power of the court to examine the witness and summoning of documents.
What is meant by 'Character Evidence'? When is character relevant? Discuss.
Explain the circumstances under which oral evidence is admitted. Explain the other modes of
Evidence.
What is Hearsay Evidence? State the reasons for exclusion of Hearsay Evidence.
"When he is about to die, no person is presumed to lie" - To what extent this rule is followed in the
Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)
Explain the circumstances in which oral evidence is admissible to clear up ambiguities in documents.
What are the exceptions to the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts
the affirmation of the issue?
Explain the concept of dying declaration' with decided cases.
Who is called 'an accomplice? How far the evidence of accomplice is admissible under theBharatiya
Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)

https://thelawgist.org/?s=an+accomplice
What is expert opinion? When is it relevant under the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB)?
Who is an accomplice? Can one of the accused be a competent witness?
What is meant by "Promissory Estoppel"? Discuss its nature and scope.
What is meant, by Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence?

PART C
Res-Gestae
Character evidence
Expert opinion
Relevant fact
Alibi
Burden of proof
Refreshing memory.
Conclusive Proof
Confession
Expert Opinion
Dying Declaration
Primary Evidence
Child Witness
Ancient documents
Extra-Judicial confession
Previous judgement may be relevant
Handwriting expert
Accomplice
Privilege of witness.
Golden rule of evidence
Conclusive proof
Relevancy of bad character
Estoppel
Child witness
Cross Examination
Expert Evidence
Character Evidence
Hearsay Evidence
Public document
Cross-Examination
Leading question
Proved
Secondary evidence
Co-accused confession
Secondary evidence
Professional communication
Refreshing memory
Hostile witness
Ancient document.
Presumption
Relevancy of Judgement
Attesting witness
Ambiguous document
Impeach the credit of witness
Indecent and scandalous question.
Leading questions.
Retracted confession.
Admission
Presumption as to a document
Hostile witness
Cross - examination: Lawful questions in
Refreshing memory
Character when relevant
Relevancy of Confession.
Res gestae
Relevancy of character
Leading questions
Presumption as to Power of Attorney
Ambiguous document
Admission
Digital signature
Opinions of Experts
Dying declaration
Dumb witness
Disproved
Best Evidence rule
Collateral Evidence
Professional Communications
Burden and Onus Distinction
Admission
Disproved
Conspiracy
Retracted confession
Judicial notice
Presumption of legitimacy
Kinds of witnesses
Presumption of legitimacy
Circumsiantial evidence
Exception to Hearsay evidence
Secondary evidence
Trap witness
Relevancy of Judgment
Re-Examination.
Hostile witness
Latent Ambiguities
Presumptions
Leading Questions.
Relevancy.
Equity Test.

PART D
’A’ claims Rs. 6 lakhs from General Insurance company under fire policy. The company contends that
it is not liable, as the fire was not accidental, but intentional. To prove the same, it brought evidence
thatA’ lived in several houses and insured them, in each of which a fire occurred and A received
insured amount. Is the evidence admissible?

Relevance: According to Section 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, evidence may be given of fa
cts in issue and relevant facts. The insurance company's evidence aims to establish a pattern of beh
avior that suggests 'A' may have intentionally caused the fires to benefit from insurance claims. This
is relevant to proving that the fire was not accidental.

2. Character Evidence: Under Section 14 of the BSA, facts showing existence of a state of mind, or of
body or bodily feeling are relevant. The history of 'A' living in multiple houses where fires occurred
could indicate a motive or intent, thus making it admissible.

### Case Laws

1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): In this case, the court held that evidence showing a pattern o
f behavior can be admissible to establish intent or motive in insurance fraud cases. The court recogn
ized that previous similar acts could be indicative of a person's intention, allowing such evidence to
be considered.

2. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003): The Supreme Court emphasized that previous conduct or b
ehavior can be relevant when determining a person's intent or state of mind, especially in cases inv
olving fraud or deceit. The court allowed evidence related to past actions to be admitted as it could
shed light on current allegations.

### Conclusion

Based on Section 5 and Section 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, along with the supporting c
ase laws, the evidence brought by the General Insurance company regarding 'A's history with previo
us fire incidents and insurance claims is likely admissible. This evidence is relevant for establishing
whether the fire was accidental or intentional, and its weight will ultimately be assessed by the cou
rt based on all circumstances surrounding the case.

2.’A’, a client, says to 'B', an attorney I have committed a murder and I wish you to defend me'. Is the
statement made by 'A' admissible in evidence against 'A' in his trial for murder? Explain with reasons:

No, the court must not record the evidence of b against A, because section 134 of the bsa lays
down that no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted to disclose any
communication made to him by his client during the course and for the purpose of his professional
employment.
In the present case A communicated to b a regarding the murder committed by him , during the
course and for the purpose of employment of b as his counsel. Therefore under section 134 of the
bsa , b must not be allowed to give evidence against A. Here it is immaterial that in view of the
Advocate (i.e. b), the offence of murder is a serious crime under IPC and capital punishment should
be awarded to a murdered.
Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954):
The Supreme Court held that ordinary conversations or letters relating to business should not be
regarded as privileged.
M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnam (1970):
The Supreme Court held that even though a spouse is debarred from deposing to the contents of
such correspondence, the same can be proved by a third person.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975):
The Supreme Court held that, the Court will proprio motu exclude evidence the production of which
is contrary to public interest.
Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1996):
The Court held that, if a telephonic conversation between an accused and his/her spouse is
intercepted by the police, the police may be permitted to prove such a communication.

3. A is indicted for murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given the wound of
which he died. Evidence is offered to show that on a previous occasion, C said that the wound was not
given by A.Discuss the admissibility of such evidence.
ans:A is indicted for the murder of B.
C says that B, when dying declared that A had given B the wound of which he died.
Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that the wound was not given by A
or in his presence.
The evidence is admissible.Impeaching credit of witness.
section 158
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the use of testimony by persons who claim
that the witness is not trustworthy, in accordance with Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
Court highlighted that the evidence should not merely attack the witness’s general character but
should specifically relate to the credibility of the statements made in the case at hand.
Testimony about a witness’s untrustworthiness must be specific and relevant to the matter before
the court.
4. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
This judgment dealt with the challenge of witness credibility through the evidence of character. The
Court clarified that evidence from individuals familiar with the witness’s character must be closely
scrutinized for reliability. It reiterated that such testimony should aim at the specific credibility of
the witness concerning the matter under examination, not merely their general reputation.
Evidence from persons familiar with the witness’s character should specifically address credibility in
the context of the case rather than general behavior.

4. A horse sold by 'A' to B' is sound is a question of fact. 'A' says to B - "Go and ask 'C'. 'C' knows all
about it". Is it relevant under Indian Evidence Act - Decide.
 answer Section 18 of BSA states the admissions made by any person expressly referred to
by party to suit.
 This section states, any statements made by a person to whom a party to the suit has
expressly referred for facts in respect to a matter in dispute are referred to as admissions.
This section also brings an exception to the general principle of admissions which are made
by strangers.
 Illustration:
 The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows
all about it" C's statement is an admission.
5. ’B’ is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to 'A' and received letters
purporting to be written by him. 'C' is B's clerk, whose duty is to examine and file B's correspondence.
D'is B's broker, to whom B' habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by 'A'for the
purpose of advising him thereon. Whether the opinion of B', 'C' and D' is relevant- Decide.

BSA Section 41 - Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant

When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or
signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is
supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a
relevant fact.

Explanation. - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he
has seen that person write, or when he had received documents purporting to be written by that
person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that
person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that
person have been habitually submitted to him.

Illustration
The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London.B is a
merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be
written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's
broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of
advising with him thereon.The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the
handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.

6. ’A’ a witness at one time swearing in favour of one party in the same proceeding and after some
time swearing in favour of the other party - Decide the testimony of 'A'.

7. The death of 'A' was caused by Poison. 'Zi, the expert who gives his opinion about the poison.
Decide the relevancy of evidence to the cause of death.
Section 40 asserts that facts, not otherwise relevant, gain relevance if they support or contradict
expert opinions. For instance, in cases of poisoning, the symptoms exhibited by other individuals
poisoned by the same substance become relevant, which would be the helpful in affirming or
denying those symptoms.
case law :
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors.:

In this landmark case, the court laid down the prerequisites for expert opinions. It emphasized that
an expert's opinion must be within a recognized field of expertise and must adhere to standard
principles.

8. ’A’ is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. Whether his previous
conviction is relevant under Evidence - Decide.
Section 49 of the BSA: This section explicitly states that a previous conviction is relevant as
evidence of bad character. It indicates that prior convictions can be admissible in court to
establish a pattern of behavior or to demonstrate the character of the accused. Specifically, it
allows for the introduction of previous convictions when they are relevant to the current
charge.
Implications for 'A': Since 'A' is charged with theft and has a history of similar offenses, the
previous conviction can be used by the prosecution to argue that 'A' has a propensity for theft.
This could potentially influence the court's perception of 'A's credibility and intentions
regarding the current charge
9. ’A’ sues 'B' for money due on a bond. The court admitted the execution of the bond but 'B' says
that it was obtained by fraud in which A denies.
Decide the burden of proof.
In the case where ‘A’ sues ‘B’ for money due on a bond, and while the execution of the bond is
admitted, ‘B’ claims that it was obtained by fraud, which ‘A’ denies, the issue of burden of proof
becomes crucial.

Burden of Proof Analysis

Initial Burden of Proof: According to Section 101 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the
burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of any fact. In this scenario, ‘A’ is
asserting that he is entitled to the money due under the bond, thus initially carrying the burden to
prove that the bond is valid and enforceable.

Admission and Counterclaim: Since ‘B’ admits the execution of the bond but claims it was obtained
through fraud, he is essentially contesting the validity of the bond. Under Section 102 of the BSA,
which states that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given on
either side, we must analyze who would prevail if no further evidence were presented.
Implications of Fraud: If no evidence is provided by either party, ‘A’ would succeed because he has
an admitted bond, and ‘B’s claim of fraud remains unproven. Therefore, under these circumstances,
it shifts the burden of proof to ‘B’ to substantiate his claim that fraud occurred in obtaining the
bond.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while ‘A’ has the initial burden to establish his claim regarding the bond, once ‘B’
raises a defense of fraud, the burden shifts to him to provide evidence supporting his assertion.
Thus, the burden of proof lies with ‘B’ to prove that the bond was obtained by fraud since if no
evidence were presented from either side, ‘A’ would be entitled to judgment based on the admitted
execution of the bond. This principle aligns with established legal precedents and reinforces that a
party alleging fraud must substantiate such claims with credible evidence

10. The court while deciding the birth of Mr. A, referred the document maintained by Mr. A, who was
a doctor. Mr. X made an entry in the document that on a given date, he attended Mr. A's mother and
delivered her a son. Decide whether the statement of entry shall be considered as Dying declaration.

11. The question is whether A and B are married. A and B were treated and received by their friends
and relatives as husband and wife usually.Decide this fact will form an opinion.

Section 44: Opinion on relationship, when relevant.

When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion,
expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of
the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the
Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecution under sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and
treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant.
12. A, is facing charges for burning his house to claim insurance money.
Earlier he committed the same act and obtained the insurance money.
Decide whether the present fact of burning down his house is incidental or accidental.
BSA Section 13 - Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular
knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each
of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The
facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a fire
occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance company, are
relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

13. There was struggle between A and B and the marks were produced on the ground. Decide
whether this fact can be considered as evidence to prove that A killed B.
Facts:
- A is accused of killing B.
- Evidence of marks on the ground, indicating a fight between A and B before the incident, is
presented.
Issue:
- Is the evidence of marks on the ground relevant in proving the crime?
Law:
- Section 5 of the bsa states that facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of relevant facts or
the facts in issue are relevant.
- Section 7 further explains that facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant
fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, are also
relevant.
Analysis:
- The marks on the ground are indicative of a physical altercation between A and B, which may
suggest a motive, intention, or involvement in the crime.
- The marks could establish a connection between A and B before the incident, thereby providing
context to the incident.
Conclusion:
- The evidence of marks on the ground is relevant under Sections 5 and 7 of the Indian Evidence Act,
as it helps explain the circumstances leading to the crime

14. A’ is charged for a crime. The fact is that, soon after the commission of the crime, he absconded
from the house. Decide whether the fact is relevant for evidence.
Section 6 of the BSA pertains to the admissibility of facts that are part of the same transaction. It
states:
"Facts which are so connected together as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant,
whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places."
The act of absconding can be considered a relevant fact under Section 6 if it is connected to the
crime charged. In this context, A's flight from the scene immediately following the alleged crime
may be interpreted as part of the overall transaction surrounding the crime itself.
n conclusion, under Section 6 of the BSA, A's act of absconding shortly after the commission of the
crime is relevant evidence that can be used to infer a consciousness of guilt. However, it is essential
to recognize that while this behavior may support the prosecution's case, it cannot serve as
conclusive proof of guilt on its own.
15. Mr. A, a doctor, submitted his opinion about the symptoms produced by poison.
Whether his opinion may be considered as evidence to decide whether the death was caused by
poison.
section 40 Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the
opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
Expert Testimony: Mr. A's medical expertise allows him to provide an informed opinion on whether
the observed symptoms align with known effects of poisoning

Supporting Evidence: If there are other facts or evidence (such as toxicology reports or witness
statements) that corroborate Mr. A's opinion regarding poisoning, these would further strengthen
the case for determining that death was caused by poison.

Relevance and Weight: While Mr. A's opinion is admissible and relevant under Sections 39 and 40, it
is important to note that such expert opinions are generally considered as part of circumstantial
evidence

Illustrations. (a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other
persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or
deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.

16. 'A' is alleged to commit a crime at Kolkatta on a certain day. 'A' pleads that on that day he was at
Lahore. Decide the relevancy of the statement.
Facts:
- A is accused of committing a crime in kolkatta .
- A claims he was in lahore
Issue:
- Can A prove his alibi (that he was in lahore at the time of the crime)?
Law:
- Section 9 of bsa, allows for facts that are inconsistent with the fact
in issue or that make the fact in issue highly improbable to be relevant.
Analysis:
- A’ was in lahore , if proven, would make it highly improbable
that he was in kolkatta at the time of the crime.
- A can present evidence such as records from the passport , witnesses, and any other
documentation to prove his alibi.
Conclusion:
- A can prove his alibi by presenting relevant evidence under Section9, making it unlikely that
he was in lahore during the crime

17. ‘A’, Juvenile accused, made a confession, that he committed a crime along with an adult accused.
Decide the evidentiary value of A's confession.

18. A’ sues B for trespass on his land. 'B' alleges the existence of public right of way over the land,
which A denies. In an earlier case, A has a decree against C for trespass on the same land. Decide the
relevancy.
section 36. Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35 are relevant if
they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or
decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

22. 'A' sues B' for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence.
Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, the part of the
correspondence in which contained, though they do not contain libel itself. Whether part of the
correspondence would be relevant? - Decide.
section 4. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as
to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and
place or at different times and places.
illustration
A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a
correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject
out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the
correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though
they do not contain the libel itself.

23. A husband files a suit for divorce on the ground of wife's adultery alleged to be established by the
fact that the child is an illegitimate child. Advise him.
Burden of Proof section 106:The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who
wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that
fact shall lie on any particular person.

Evidence of Adultery
direct evidence (eyewitness accounts),
circumstantial evidence (financial records, messages),
expert testimony regarding the child’s paternity.section 39

24. A person is shown to have been in possession of number of placards all printed at one time from
original. One of the placards was placed as an evidence. Decide the admissibility of this evidence.
section 57. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court

25. 'A' is tried for murder of 'B' by poison. Before the death of 'B', 'A' procured poison similar to that
which was administered to 'B'. Is it a relevant fact?
section 6(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in
issue or relevant fact
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to
such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous
or subsequent thereto.

26. A’ undertook to collect rent for 'B'. 'B' sued 'A' for not collecting rent due from 'C'. 'A' denied that
rent was due from 'C' to 'B'. Can a statement by
'C' that he owed rent to 'B' is admissible?
Admissions by Persons whose Position must be proved as against party to suit: (Section 17)
This section of BSA as in general it refers to third party who makes statement against himself when
it affects his position.
It is taken under admission only when the position is proved as against the party to the suit and the
third party still exists at the time of the suit.
Illustration:
A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that
rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant
fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

27. A crime is committed by several persons. 'A', 'B' and 'C' three of the criminals are captured on the
spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating 'D'. Is it
admissible? yes
The Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in
considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the
particular case before it:—
section 119 (2)The Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering
whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:—

a crime is committed by several persons.A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot
and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts
corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable;

28. 'A', a merchant, wrote a letter in his handwriting from London to a merchant B' in Chennai, which
was received by "C", B"s clerk.'C"s duty is to examine and file 'B"s correspondence. 'D' is the broker of
B', to whom B' habitually submits the letters purporting to be written by 'A' for the purpose of
advising him. The question is, whether the letter is in the handwriting of 'A'. Decide the relevancy of
evidence of B', 'C' and D'.

29’.A’ is a lunatic witness, who was placed as a witness in a trial. Decide the Competency of the
witness.
section 124 All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are
prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those
questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause
of the same kind.

A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the
questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.

31. 'A' is sued by 'B' for trespass upon his land. A alleges existence of public way and also produces a
decree that supports him which is obtained by
'C' in respect of the same land. Is this relevant?
section 36. Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35 are relevant if
they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or
decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustration. A sues B for trespass on his
land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of
a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in
which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof
that the right of way exists.

32. Prabhu, a client sells his property to his advocate and then brings a suit against him for setting
aside the sale on grounds of fraud. On whom the burden of proof lies.
section 105. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no
evidence at all were given on either side.
A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was
obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as
the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.

33. Sahu, is tried for having committed a crime at Chennai on a particular day. He leads evidence to
prove the fact, that on the particular day he was at France. Is it relevant?
section 9. Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant— (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in
issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence
or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. Illustrations. (a)
The question is, whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day. The fact that, on that
day, A was at Ladakh is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was
at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable,
though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

34. A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said that "B and I, murdered C".
Decide the effect of confession of A.
section 24. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is
proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well
as against the person who makes such confession. Explanation I.—"Offence", as used in this
section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. Explanation II.—A trial of
more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to
comply with a proclamation issued under section 24 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section. Illustrations. (a) A and B are
jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered C". The Court may
consider the effect of this confession as against B.

35. A, has been in possession of landed property for a long time of 35 years.
He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. Decide whether the
custody is proper.

 Section 92 of BSA provides for presumption as to documents that are thirty years old. This
provision was earlier found under Section 90 of IEA.
 Section 92 provides:
 Any document proved or purporting to be thirty years old
 Produced from any custody the Court considers in a particular case to be proper
 The Court may presume
 That the signature or handwriting is of the person of whom it purports to be
 In case the document is executed or attested that it was duly attested and executed by the
persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
 It is to be noted that the provision uses the phrase “may presume”.
 “may presume” is found in Section 2(h) of BSA.
 Section 2(h) provides that whenever it is provided by this Adhiniyam that the Court may
presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or
may call for proof of it;

36. A, a client says to Z, his counsel, "I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me"
'. Decide the evidentiary value of the communication.
section 132 (2) It is immaterial whether the attention of such advocate referred to in the proviso to
sub-section (1), was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. Explanation.—The
obligation stated in this section continues after the professional service has ceased.

A, a client, says to B, an advocate—"I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me". As the
defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected
from disclosure

37. 'A' who had appeared in B.A. Examination of the university was declared pass and eligible for a
degree. On the basis of the result 'A' appeared in Civil Services Exam, and qualified for the interview.
However, before the results, the University Communicated to 'A' that his B.A. result was wrongly
declared and that he had failed. A filed a writ petition against the University. Can the university
adduce evidence to justify its revision of the result?
section 63

38’.A’ is accused of theft. During the police custody he indicated the place where the stolen goods
were hidden and the police recovered those goods. Can this information be used against 'A'?
facts:
- A is accused of theft.
- A leads the police to the location where he hid the stolen goods.
Issue

- Is A’s act of leading the police to the stolen goods relevant as evidence?
Law:
- Section 23 of the bsa , states that when any fact is discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense, so much of such
information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered may be proved.
Analysis:
- The act of A leading the police to the hidden stolen goods is relevant under Section 23. The
discovery of the stolen goods is a direct consequence of the information provided by A, making
it admissible as evidence.
- This section serves as an exception to the general rule under Sections 25 and 26, which
otherwise render confessions to police officers inadmissible.
Conclusion:
- The fact that A led the police to the stolen goods is relevant and can be used as evidence under
Section 27

39’.A’ an advocate, wrote a letter to his client who is a terrorist, to remain absconding. Whether this
letter can be used as evidence against the advocate to punish him for helping terrorists?

40. A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said "B and I murdered C".
Whether the confession of A is binding on B?
section 24.When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is
proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well
as against the person who makes such confession. Explanation I.—"Offence", as used in this
section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. Explanation II.—A trial of
more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to
comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.

A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered C". The
Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B

41. The question before the court is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A. The personal
assistant of A deposed that A wrote that letter in his presence. Is it sufficient to prove the handwriting
of A?

42. A and B executed an unregistered partition deed. They produced oral evidence to prove the
partition. Is the oral evidence admissible?

43. The question before the court is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A. The personal
assistant of A deposed that A wrote that letter in his presence. Is it sufficient to prove the handwriting
of A?

46. 'A' is indicted for the murder of B'. 'C' says that B', when dying, declared that 'A' caused the
wound to B', of which he died. How can the credit of witness be impeached? Decide.
section 158 The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party,
or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him— (a) by the evidence of persons who
testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit; (b) by
proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any
other corrupt inducement to give his evidence; (c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with
any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.
(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the
wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that B,
when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died. The evidence is
admissible.

47. Y’ the wife of 'A' was indebted to 'Z' a sum of Rs.3000/- which she had borrowed on account of
their needs. Several letters were signed and transacted between Y' and 'Z'. 'Z' showed the letter to his
wife, which invited him to come there and receive the payment. He left his house, the next day in
time, to catch the train. After two days, his body was found cut into 7 pieces in a steel trunk in a train
compartment. Decide the relevancy of letters in this case.
sectioon 26(1)Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or
who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance
cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the
case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases,
namely:—
when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that
person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made
them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever
may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question;

"Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor" is a landmark Indian legal case that dealt with the concept of
a "dying declaration," where the Privy Council ruled that a statement made by the deceased
regarding his visit to the accused's house,

48.A police personnel has a certificate of technical competency. He has undergone a technical course
for armour and has long experience of inspection, examination and testing of fine - arms. Whether
such a police personnel is an expert? Decide.

48. 'A' was called to police station for interrogation. During interrogation 'A' complained of severe
stomach pain. He was taken to Hospital in a Police van, while in hospital, he confessed to a doctor
that he committed robbery. Is the confession admissible?
23 of bsa

50.’A’ has proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. State the method
of proof prescribed by law to prove the contents of the document.
c. 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that Secondary Evidence is usually given asevidence in
the absence of better evidence viz., primary evidence. A photocopy of an original
document is secondaryevidence as to the contents of the original
document. Sec. 60 (c)states that Secondary evidence may be given of
the existence or contents of adocument when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the
party offering evidence of itscontents cannot produce it in reasonable
time. Guided by the above provisions of Sec. 60, ‘A’ can produce a photocopy of
the documentdestroyed by fire to prove its contents

51.A’ is tried for murder. During the trial, evidence of bad character is produced by the prosecution
against the accused. State the admissibility of bad character evidence.