Indian Evidence Act — Part 1 MCQs with Explanations

Certainly! Here's an explanation of each of the mentioned sections of the Indian Evidence Act: Section 122 - Communications during marriage No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. Section 123 - Evidence as to affairs of State No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. Section 124 - Official communications No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure. Section 125 - Information as to commission of offences No Magistrate or police-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenueofficer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue. According to the Indian Evidence Act, Section 122 provides the specific provision for protecting communications during marriage. This section protects communications made between a husband and wife during their marriage and ensures that these communications are considered privileged and cannot be compelled to be disclosed as evidence in court.

Definition of Relevant Opinion under the Indian Evidence Act: Under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the court has to form an opinion as to the handwriting of any person, the opinion of someone who is acquainted with the handwriting of that person is relevant. A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting if: 1. They have seen the person write. 2. They have received documents written by that person in response to communications addressed to them. 3. They have dealt with documents containing that person’s handwriting in the course of their official duties. Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option D: Of all the above. Each of the individuals—B, C, and D—has a legitimate basis for being acquainted with A’s handwriting: 1. 'B' (Option A): 'B' is a merchant in Delhi who has received many letters written by 'A'. Since 'B' has received multiple letters directly from 'A', he is familiar with A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. 'C' (Option B): 'C' is a clerk of 'A' whose duty was to examine and file A’s correspondence. Since 'C' has regularly handled A’s documents as part of his job, he is well-acquainted with A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant. 3. 'D' (Option C): 'D' is Z’s broker, and Z habitually submitted letters purportedly written by 'A' to 'D' for advice. Since 'D' has regularly reviewed and advised on A’s letters, he has had repeated exposure to A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant. Since all three individuals ('B', 'C', and 'D') meet the legal criteria for being acquainted with A’s handwriting, the opinion of all of them is relevant under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the correct answer is Option D: Of all the above.

Definition of Privilege to Withhold Documents/Information: Under the Indian Evidence Act , certain documents or information can be withheld from disclosure on the grounds of public interest, privilege, or confidentiality. This is particularly relevant in cases involving state secrets, confidential communications, and official records . Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option C: Section 123. Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section states that: No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to affairs of state, except with the permission of the head of the department concerned, who shall decide whether such disclosure would be in the public interest. This means that if a document is an unpublished official record concerning state affairs, it cannot be disclosed without the government's approval. This privilege is granted to protect sensitive information that may affect national security, public administration, or other governmental functions. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Section 120 – Incorrect. This section deals with the competency of witnesses, stating that a husband or wife can testify against each other in civil or criminal proceedings. Option B: Section 126 – Incorrect. This section relates to professional communication between an attorney and a client, preventing an advocate from disclosing confidential communications made during their professional engagement. Option D: Section 98 – Incorrect. This section deals with the interpretation of words in documents and does not concern the privilege to withhold information. Thus, the correct answer is Option C: Section 123 , as it explicitly addresses the privilege of withholding official documents/information under administrative law.

Definition of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of information given by an accused in police custody, but only to the extent that it distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact. This section provides an exception to the general rule that confessions made to the police are inadmissible. Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option D: Information given by the accused, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Scope of Section 27: This section allows only that portion of the accused’s statement to be admitted as evidence, which directly leads to the discovery of a material fact. The rationale behind this is that if a fact is discovered based on the accused’s statement, it provides corroborative evidence, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case. Essential Conditions for Section 27 to Apply: The person giving the information must be an accused. The information must be given while the accused is in the custody of the police. The information must lead to the discovery of a fact. Only that part of the statement which directly relates to the discovery of the fact is admissible. Illustration: If an accused in police custody states, "I have hidden the murder weapon under the bridge," and the weapon is found as a result of this statement, only the fact that the weapon was found based on the accused’s statement is admissible, not the entire confession. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: That relates to only the place of occurrence – Incorrect. Section 27 is concerned with facts discovered through the accused’s statement, not merely the place of occurrence unless something material is discovered there. Option B: That relates to nature of the object – Incorrect. The nature of the object alone is insufficient. The section applies only when an object is discovered based on the accused’s statement. Option C: That relates to the past user of the object – Incorrect. The past use of an object does not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 unless it leads to a tangible discovery. Thus, the correct answer is Option D: Information given by the accused, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

Definition of Civil Matters under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Civil matters refer to legal disputes between individuals or organizations regarding rights, obligations, and liabilities, as opposed to criminal matters which deal with offenses against the state. Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option A: Section 23 . Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 23 specifically deals with admissions in civil cases . It states that in civil cases, an admission cannot be used as evidence if it was made under an agreement that it would not be given as evidence, or if it was made with the express or implied condition that it should not be disclosed. Purpose of Section 23: This provision is intended to protect parties from having their settlement discussions or private agreements used against them in court. It encourages dispute resolution without fear of repercussions in future litigation. Example: If two parties to a contract dispute negotiate privately and one party admits fault, this admission cannot be used in court if it was made under an agreement that such statements would remain confidential. Explanation of Other Options: Option B: Section 27 – Incorrect. Section 27 deals with the admissibility of confessions made by an accused in police custody, which is relevant in criminal cases, not civil matters. Option C: Section 53 – Incorrect. Section 53 pertains to character evidence in criminal proceedings, stating that the good character of an accused is relevant in criminal trials but not in civil matters. Option D: Section 133 – Incorrect. Section 133 relates to the testimony of an accomplice in criminal cases and does not pertain to civil matters. Thus, the correct answer is Option A: Section 23 , as it exclusively deals with admissions in civil cases.

Definition of Accomplice: An accomplice is a person who has taken part in the commission of a crime, either by directly participating, aiding, or abetting the offense. In legal proceedings, the testimony of an accomplice is often viewed with caution due to their involvement in the crime. Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option B: Accomplice . Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 133 deals with the admissibility of an accomplice's testimony. It states that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice . Key Points of Section 133: An accomplice is legally allowed to testify in court. A conviction can be based solely on an accomplice’s statement. However, courts generally exercise caution and seek corroboration before relying solely on an accomplice’s testimony. Illustration: If 'X' and 'Y' commit a robbery and 'Y' turns into a prosecution witness against 'X', 'Y' is considered an accomplice. According to Section 133, 'Y' can be a competent witness, but the court will typically look for additional evidence to support 'Y's statement. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Number of Witnesses – Incorrect. The number of witnesses is covered under Section 134, which states that no specific number of witnesses is required to prove a fact. Option C: Oral Evidence – Incorrect. Oral evidence is dealt with in Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertain to statements that are made in court. Option D: Relevancy of Facts – Incorrect. The relevancy of facts is covered under Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, which define what facts are admissible in court. Thus, the correct answer is Option B: Accomplice , as Section 133 specifically addresses the evidentiary value of an accomplice’s testimony.

Dying Declaration: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person regarding the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it, which is admissible in court under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Correct Answer: Option B - The person making the statement must be under expectation of death Under the Indian Evidence Act, it is not necessary for a person making a dying declaration to be under the expectation of imminent death. Unlike English law, which requires the declarant to believe that death is certain, Indian law allows a dying declaration to be admitted even if the person did not expect to die, as long as it relates to the cause of death. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Relates to cause of death - A dying declaration must relate to the cause of death or circumstances leading to it. If the statement does not pertain to the cause of death, it may not be admissible. Option C: The person making the statement must be competent - Competency of the declarant is necessary. If the person making the dying declaration was mentally unsound or incapable of understanding the situation, the statement may not be considered valid. Option D: The statement must be complete - A dying declaration should ideally be complete, but even if it is incomplete due to the declarant’s condition, the court may still consider the relevant portion admissible. Thus, the key point is that unlike in English law, under Indian law, a dying declaration does not require the declarant to be under the expectation of death for it to be admissible in evidence.

Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986: This amendment was introduced to curb the increasing instances of dowry-related offenses, particularly dowry deaths. It added specific provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to strengthen the legal framework against such crimes. Correct Answer: Option C - Section 113B Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section was inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. It deals with the presumption as to dowry death. According to Section 113B: If a woman dies due to burns or bodily injury, or in any other unnatural circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry shortly before her death, the court shall presume that her husband or his relatives caused the dowry death. This provision shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, meaning the husband or relatives must prove their innocence if such circumstances exist. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Section 111A - This section deals with the presumption as to certain offenses, including abetment of suicide and terrorist activities. It is unrelated to dowry death. Option B: Section 113A - This section presumes abetment of suicide if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage due to cruelty by her husband or in-laws. Although related to women’s rights, it is distinct from dowry death. Option D: None of the above - This is incorrect as Section 113B was specifically inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. Thus, Section 113B plays a crucial role in combating dowry-related deaths by strengthening the evidentiary presumption against the accused.

Definition of Facts under the Indian Evidence Act: According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , the term "fact" includes: 1. Anything capable of being perceived by the senses (such as seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, or tasting). 2. Any mental condition of which a person is conscious (such as intention, knowledge, or belief). Correct Answer: Option D - Anything capable of being perceived by the senses and any mental condition of which any person is conscious Explanation: The Indian Evidence Act recognizes both physical facts (those perceived by the senses) and psychological facts (such as intention or knowledge). For example: >> A person's presence at a crime scene (a fact perceived by the senses). >> A person's intention to commit a crime (a mental condition). Both types of facts are relevant in legal proceedings. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Anything capable of being perceived by the senses only (Incorrect) This option is incomplete because it ignores mental conditions, which are also considered facts under the Act. Option B: Anything not being capable of being perceived by the senses only (Incorrect) This statement is misleading. Facts include both sensory perceptions and mental conditions, so limiting it to "not being capable of being perceived by the senses" is incorrect. Option C: Only any mental condition of which any person is conscious (Incorrect) Mental conditions are facts, but this option is incorrect because it ignores physical facts that can be perceived by the senses. Thus, the most comprehensive and correct answer is Option D .

Definition of Alibi: The term alibi means "elsewhere." It is a defense used by an accused person to prove that they were at a different place when the alleged crime was committed, making it impossible for them to have committed the offense. Correct Answer: Option C - Section 11 of the Evidence Act Explanation: Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that facts that are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or which make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue highly probable or improbable, are relevant. The defense of alibi falls under this section because it presents evidence that makes the accused's presence at the crime scene highly improbable. If the accused can prove they were somewhere else at the time of the crime, it negates their involvement. Explanation of Other Options: Option A: Section 9 of the Evidence Act (Incorrect) Section 9 deals with facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, such as identity, motive, or occasion. It does not govern the defense of alibi. Option B: Section 12 of the Evidence Act (Incorrect) Section 12 relates to the relevancy of facts in suits for damages, which is not related to the defense of alibi. Option D: Section 6 of the Evidence Act (Incorrect) Section 6 covers the doctrine of res gestae, which includes facts forming part of the same transaction. It does not apply to the defense of alibi. Thus, the correct answer is Option C - Section 11 of the Evidence Act .

The correct answer is Option D: He does not become a witness and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. Let's break down why: Imagine someone is asked by the court to bring a specific document. This is called being summoned to produce a document. Option A is incorrect: Simply handing over a document doesn't automatically make them a witness. A witness gives testimony under oath. Options B and C are incorrect: Cross-examination is when lawyers question a witness to test the truth of their statements. If the person isn't a witness, they can't be cross-examined yet. Option D is correct: The person is only acting as a document provider, fulfilling a court order. Important point: They only become a witness if one of the parties (or the court) decides to call them as a witness to explain or verify the document. Only then can they be questioned (including cross-examined).

In general, a statement made by a person in anticipation of death is admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, for a statement to be admissible, it must be made by a person who subsequently dies due to the injuries or circumstances mentioned in the statement. In the given scenario, the statement is made by a person who survives and communicates it to a police officer. Since the person does not subsequently die, the statement does not qualify as a dying declaration and is therefore considered inadmissible as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the correct answer is: C. Inadmissible

The Indian Evidence Act primarily deals with the rules and regulations governing the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. It outlines the criteria that evidence must meet to be considered relevant and admissible in legal proceedings. 1. Relevancy of evidence: The Indian Evidence Act addresses the relevancy of evidence, which means determining whether evidence is logically connected to the facts in issue or to a relevant fact. It outlines various provisions regarding the types of evidence that are considered relevant and can be presented in court to establish or disprove a fact in question. 2. Reliability of evidence: While the Indian Evidence Act does indirectly consider the reliability of evidence through provisions related to credibility and weight of evidence, it primarily focuses on determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible rather than explicitly addressing the reliability of evidence as a separate concept. 3. Admissibility of evidence: One of the main functions of the Indian Evidence Act is to establish the rules for the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. It outlines the criteria that evidence must meet to be legally acceptable and presented before the court. The act specifies various circumstances under which evidence may be admissible or inadmissible. Given that the Indian Evidence Act primarily deals with the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, the correct answer is Option B: 1 and 3 only.

In all the options provided, there is no application of estoppel: Option A: On a point of law Estoppel does not apply on points of law because individuals cannot be prevented from relying on the correct legal interpretation of a statute or legal principle. Estoppel primarily operates in the realm of facts, not law. Option B: Against a statute Estoppel cannot be invoked against a statute because statutes are paramount and take precedence over any inconsistent statements or actions. Individuals cannot be estopped from enforcing their rights or complying with statutory obligations. Option C: Attestation of a deed Attestation of a deed involves the act of witnessing the signing of a document to confirm its authenticity. While attestation serves a purpose in legal formalities, it does not involve estoppel. Estoppel pertains to preventing a party from asserting a fact inconsistent with a previous position, which is not the case with attestation. Therefore, Option D correctly states that there is no application of estoppel in any of the scenarios mentioned.

The correct answer is Option D: Both before Doctor and before Friend . In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, an extra-judicial confession refers to a confession made outside the court or not in the presence of a judicial magistrate. It can be made before a doctor or a friend. The term "extra-judicial" means outside the official legal proceedings or outside the court. Therefore, the correct answer is Option D: Both before Doctor and before Friend .

In criminal trials, the provision mentioned in the question can be found in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act: Section 105: According to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is accused of an offense and it is claimed that the case falls within any of the general or special exceptions or the proviso to the provision under which the person is charged, the burden of proving the existence of such exceptions or proviso is on the accused. This means that the accused must provide evidence and prove that their case falls within an exception or proviso. Therefore, the correct answer is: C. The absence of the case of the accused falling in any general or special exceptions or the proviso to the provision under which the accused is charged.

Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to bilateral documents. In this context, bilateral documents refer to documents that involve two or more parties, typically in the form of an agreement, contract, or communication between two parties. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the production of such documents in court as evidence when their contents are required to be proved. The other options do not accurately describe the scope of Section 91: Option A: Unilateral documents involve only one party and are not typically covered by Section 91. Option C: Tripartite documents involve three parties, but the section is concerned with bilateral documents. Option D: All the above is not correct as Section 91 specifically applies to bilateral documents. So, the correct answer is Option B: Bilateral , which accurately reflects the scope of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The correct answer is (C) Dying declaration . * Dying Declaration: This refers to a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, explaining the circumstances of their death. Such statements are admissible as evidence, even though the person can't be cross-examined. * Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 is a landmark case that deals specifically with the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations. The Supreme Court in this case laid down important principles regarding what constitutes a valid dying declaration and how much weight should be given to it as evidence. * Confession: A confession is a statement made by a person admitting to committing a crime. * Admission: An admission is a statement that acknowledges a fact that is against one's interest. * Estoppel: Estoppel prevents someone from denying something they previously asserted or implied, if another person acted on that assertion to their detriment. Therefore, the Kaushal Rao case is directly linked to the legal principles surrounding dying declarations .

Naturally is the correct answer to “Section 108 of the Evidence Act provides that when a man has not been heard of for seven years by those who would . . . . . . . . have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive shifts on the person who affirms it.”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

115 is the correct answer to “Rule of estoppel is contained in Section . . . . . . . . of the Evidence Act, 1872.”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Sections 45 and 46 is the correct answer to “Which are the provisions under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with relevancy of opinion of experts”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

As an exception to the doctrine of consideration in the law of contract is the correct answer to “The Principle of Promissory Estoppel found its root:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Alibi is the correct answer to “The plea can succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed'. The Supreme Court of India, in this observation, was referring to the plea of:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 5 is the correct answer to “Which one of the following sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act is the correct answer to “Two friends A and B were sleeping in a room which was bolted from inside. In the morning, A is found murdered. Under which provision of the Evidence Act, prosecution can claim shifting of burden on B to prove the manner in which the murder took place:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 10 is the correct answer to “Which section of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on the principle of "Agency"”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it is the correct answer to “When one fact is declared by the Indian Evidence Act to be conclusive proof of another, the court, on proof of one fact:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 33 is the correct answer to “Which of the following provisions of Indian Evidence Act permits evidence recorded in one case to be considered relevant in a subsequent proceeding”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

True is the correct answer to “Evidence of a witness in a previous proceeding would be admissible under section 33 of the evidence act only if the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness'. The statement is . . . . . . . .”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Documentary evidence is the correct answer to “Electronics records produced before the court are:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

It is not an entry made in public or other official book, register or record is the correct answer to “Accused wants to submit a document for consideration under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In which of the following cases will the document become irrelevant”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Deceit is the correct answer to “Which one of the following has not been mentioned as a ground under section 24 rendering a confession by an accused person irrelevant”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

The accused must be in police custody is the correct answer to “Mandatory requirement of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is that . . . . . . . .”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 157 is the correct answer to “Former statement of a witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to the same fact, as provided under Section . . . . . . . . of the Indian Evidence Act.”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Discovery of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and was first derived from the information given by the accused is the correct answer to “Section 27 applies to”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

An oral evidence is the correct answer to “An evidence given by a dumb witness in an open court is . . . . . . . .”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Irrebuttable presumption of law is the correct answer to “The presumption under Section 41 of Evidence Act is a”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side is the correct answer to “According to the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Ask leading question to his own witness with the permission of the Court is the correct answer to “Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prosecution or Complainant may”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.

Section 110 is the correct answer to “Which of the following section of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the burden of proof as to ownership”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Indian Evidence Act.