Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II: Important Solved Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams | Part - II of X
Legal Bites brings to you Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II.
Legal Bites brings to you Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II. The questions enlisted here are arranged section-wise and will aid the students preparing for Judiciary, APO or University Exams. Detailed solutions have been provided for the questions to answer all your queries. The list of questions curated by Legal Bites will help candidates identify the important and frequently asked questions and give them good practice for their aptitude and knowledge.
Law of Evidence Mains Solved Questions Series Part-II
We know answer writing is a continuous exercise that is an inalienable part of the preparation process for any Examination. A well-written answer not only reflects the knowledge of an aspirant but also his/her ability to tailor the content in a manner suited to meet the expectations of the question.
Rigorous preparation for this exam is mandatory in order to crack it. In the last few months prior to the exams, it is sufficient for candidates to simply keep practising these questions in order to gain mastery over the subjects studied. Not only the candidate’s confidence level but also their scores will show good improvement upon following it.
Law of Evidence Mains Solved Questions Series Part-II of X
“Presumptions may be looked on as the bats of the law, fitting in twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts”. Explain while discussing, in brief, the different kinds of presumptions recognized by the Indian Evidence Act. [D.J.S. 1990]
A sues B for libel (defamation) contained in a letter forming part of the correspondence. Are the facts of the letters between the parties (not containing the defamatory statements) relating to the subject out of which the libel arose relevant under Section 6? Give reasons.
A commits rape of B in a lonely place. After committing rape A goes away and the victim returned home. When B comes home, she makes a statement regarding such rape to her sister C. Is the statement made to C by B, regarding rape, relevant under Section 6, as forming part of the same transaction? Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point.
A, after learning that C had been murdered, went to the spot and found that the body of C was being taken to the house of C by four persons who told him that B had murdered C and had run away. Does the statement of four persons form part of Res gestae? [U.P.C.J. 1985, EIR.J.S. 1999]
A is tried for the murder of B. Are the facts that B knew that A had murdered C and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, relevant? [U.P.C.J. 1985 and 1999 HR.J.S. 1995 Bihar. C.J. 1979]
A is tried for the murder of B. Evidence is offered at the trial to show that A absconded after receiving a letter, warning him that the inquiry for the murder was being made. Discuss the relevancy of aforesaid facts. [HR.J.S. 1995]
At the trial of A for the murder of her husband B by administering arsenic to him. Evidence is offered to show that A and B used to have frequent quarrels. Discuss fully whether the evidence offered is admissible? [U.P.C.J. 1985, 1999, BIHAR J. 1997, HR.J.S. 1998]
What is the Test identification Parade of the accused and its evidentiary value? Discuss with reference to relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [U.P.H.J.S. 2018]
An accused in a case of dacoity is produced before you by the investigating officer in a muffled face with a request for holding a test identification parade to fix his identity as a culprit. How will you deal with the application? [D.J.S. 2005]
Six appellants were convicted under Sections, 395, 396 read with Section 397, I.P.0 for having looted a passenger bus at about 11 p.m. on a moonless night and having caused the death of one passenger. The sole basis for their conviction was their identification by different PWs in the identification parade conducted by the Executive Magistrate. The evidence showed that after their arrest, the accused persons were kept in the police station for 2 days and that at the time of holding the test identification parade, the accused persons were in fetters whereas the other undertrials, who were mixed with the accused persons were not in fetters. The witnesses also deposed that the culprits had their faces muffled at the time of the incident. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that in these circumstances it would not have been possible for the PWs. to identify the distinctive features of the culprits at the time of the commission of an offence. So their subsequent identification in the test becomes doubtful. It is also contended that during their detention at the police station for 2 days, they were shown to the PWs. What is the evidentiary value of such a test identification? Would you uphold the conviction? [D.J.S 1996]
State whether and why the evidence sought to be adduced in the circumstances given below is relevant or not? M, accused of murdering A at Adilabad on 26-02-1987, wants to lead evidence that he was at Guntur on that day? [A.P.J.S. 1989]