Legal Bites brings to you Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX. The questions enlisted here are arranged section-wise and will aid the students preparing for Judiciary, APO or University Exams. The list of questions curated by Legal Bites will help candidates identify the important and frequently asked questions and give them a good practise for their aptitude and knowledge.
Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
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 Questions Series Part-IX of X
How many witnesses are required to prove a criminal case beyond all reasonable doubts? Refer to the relevant provision, if any, under the Indian Evidence Act in this regard.
A is alleged to have committed the offense of theft in the house of B. There is only one eye witness of the theft, namely C, and neither there is any other eye witness nor there any circumstantial evidence in this regard. Can A be convicted only on the basis of the deposition of C during the trial? Give reasons and also refer to relevant provisions and a judicial decision on the point.
A is prosecuted for the offense of murder of B. There is only one ‘eye-witness’, namely C, of the occurrence. There is no other eye-witness or any other circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of C. Can A’ be convicted even in a case of a serious offense of murder on the basis of sole testimony of C without any corroboration either by direct or circumstantial evidence? Give reasons and also refer to the relevant provision and judicial decision on the point, if any, under the Indian Evidence Act.
‘A’, a sessions judge convicts some of the accused persons only on the basis of evidence of an accomplice who is a sole witness, in absence of any other evidence—either direct or circumstantial. In his judgment, he assigns the reason for the conviction of the accused persons that Section 134 of the Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. Is the order of conviction passed by the sessions judge valid? Give reasons.
In a criminal case, 12 persons are charged for the murder of B. There is only one eve-witness of the occurrence. Neither is there any other direct evidence nor is there any circumstantial evidence against the accused persons. Should the court convict all the 12 accused persons only on the basis of a single eye-witness? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.
According to Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. According to Section 133 of the same Act, an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Reconcile the above statements of law and quote cases. [HR.J.S. 1996, U.P.C.J. 1982, 1984, 1987, 1997, 2012, U.P.H.J.S. 1998]
What are the examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination? What are their objects? What questions can be put to a witness in cross-examination? [M.P.C.J. 1996, 2013, U.P.C.J. 1987, 2013]
A filed a suit against B and C on the basis of a promissory note. B in his written statement admitted the claim of A. When A appeared as a witness, B wanted permission to cross-examine A. Decide and give reasons. [D.J.S. 1989]
What is ‘examination-in-chief’ under the Indian Evidence Act? Refer to relevant provisions in this regard. [BIHAR J. 1997, 1977, 2000, 2006, 2011, R.J.S. 1999, W.B.J.S. 1997, 1991]
What is the object of ‘examination-in-chief’? [HR.J.S. 1998, U.P.C.J. 1987, W.B.J.S. 1997, 1991]
What is ‘cross-examination’? Refer to a relevant provision under the Indian Evidence Act, if any, on the point. [R.J.S. 1999, W.B.J.S. 1997, 1991, Bihar J.S. 1977]
What is the object of ‘cross-examination’? [U.P.C.J. 1987, HR.J.S. 1998, U.P.A.P.O. 1994, W.B.J.S. 1997, Bihar J.S. 1977]
A, a witness dies after examination-in-chief but before his cross-examination. Is the evidence of A given “in-chief” admissible? Give-reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point?
What is ’re-examination’? Refer to the relevant provision. [R.J.S. 1999, W.B.J.S., 1997]
What is the object of ’re-examination’? [U.P.C.J. 1987, HR.J.S. 1998, W.B.J.S. 1997]
- “Where a party fails to question his opponent’s witness, the presumption is that his evidence is accepted.” Elaborate on this statement and indicate the exception if any.
- Non-examination of the investigating officer at a criminal trial is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution agency”.
- Explain and illustrate the effect of non-examination by the prosecution of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence. [D.J.S. 1991]
Write a short note on the leading questions. [U.P.C.J. 1987, 1988, 2018, B.J. 1975, 1987, 1991, 2014]
What is the principle behind the asking of leading questions?
By what name, any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called under the Indian Evidence Act? [U.P.C.J., 2003, 2004, U.K.C.J. 2002, W.B.C.J. 1999, 1988 and 1992, HR.J.S. 1998, BIHAR J., 1991, 1987, 1975]
When can the leading question be asked? Refer to relevant provisions. [W.B.J.S. 1996, 1992 & 1988. HR.J.S. 1998]
When can leading questions not be asked? Refer to relevant provisions. [W.B.J.S. 1992, 1988, HR.J.S. 1998]
Write notes on the following:
- Evidence as to matters in writing.
- Cross-examination as to the previous statement in writing.
- Question lawful in cross-examination.
- When witnesses to be compelled to answer.