EVIDENCE LAW

3 AND 5 YEARS LLB UNDER KARNATAKA STATE LAW

UNIVERSITY

MOST IMPORTANT PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

ALONG WITH ANSWERS

By
ANIL KUMAR K T
Mob: 9584416446
 Karnataka State law university 3 and 5 Years LLB.
ANIL KUMAR K T LLB COACH
Evidence Law
Most Expected questions
1. Define Evidence and Explain the different kinds of evidence?
2. Explain the doctrine of “Res gestae” with the decided cases.
3. What is dying declaration? What are the conditions for its admissibility
as evidence?
4. What is an expert? State the circumstances in which expert opinion
becomes relevant?
5. What are public documents? How they are proved?
6. Define estoppel? State the different kinds of estoppel?
7. Explain the protection given to the following circumstances under
Evidence act. A) Communication between husband-and-wife B)
Communication between client and his advocate.
8. Write a note on confession by co accused.
9. Write a note on Alibi.
10.Write a note on leading questions.
11.Define admissions? Distinguish it from confession?
12.Define secondary evidence? State the cases in which secondary evidence
relating to documents may be given.
13.What is burden proof? On whom it lies?
14.Explain the different kinds of privileged communication?
15.What is 1) Examination in chief 2) Cross examination 3) Re examination
of witness.
16.Explain the circumstances in which facts not otherwise relevant become
relevant?
17.Discuss the relevancy of character evidence.
18.Write a note on presumption as to legitimacy of child.
19.Define evidence? Distinguish between relevancy and admission of
evidence.
20.Explain the relevancy of introductory and explanatory facts.
21.Oral evidence in all cases whatever be direct explain the statement with
exceptions.
 22.Explain the presumptions in Rape and dowry death cases.
23.What are leading questions? When these can be asked?
24.Write a note on public document.
25.Write a note on hostile witness.
26.Discuss the relevant facts showing preparation, motive and conduct.
27.What is confession? Discuss the evidentiary value of confession of co
accused?
28.Explain the conditions of relevancy of dying declaration?
29.Explain the relevance of character evidence in civil and criminal cases.
30.Discuss the privileges available to communications between advocates
and clients?
31.Write a note on Identification parade.
32.Explain the circumstances in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be given.
33.Define evidence? “ The rules of evidence are in general same in civil and
criminal cases” Explain?
34.Explain the relevancy of the facts forming the part same transaction with
illustrations?
35.Write a note on professional communications.
36.No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a
person accused of any offence. Comment? What are the exceptions
recognized under the Indian Evidence act?
37.Explain the scope and extent of privilege conferred on professional
communications as essential in the Indian evidence act.
38.Discuss the provisions relating to character evidence.
39.Explain “may presume” shall presume and conclusive proof?
40.Discuss the scope of cross examination and Explain the questions lawful
in cross examination.
41.Explain the circumstances in which judgement of the courts become
relevant.
42.Explain the scope of sections 113A and 114A under Indian Evidence Act.
43.Write a note on accomplice.

BY
ANIL KUMAR K T LLB COACH
Define Evidence and Explain the different Kinds of Evidence?
Introduction:
The term “Evidence” means anything by which any alleged matter of fact is

either proved or disproved. Methods by which facts re proved are governed by

the law of evidence

The main function of the Law of Evidence is to prescribe rules to prove or

disprove the facts of a case before a court of Law.

According to Section 3 “Evidence” means and includes

All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by

witnesses, in election to matter to fort under inquiry. Such statements are called

oral Evidence.

The term Evidence includes all the legal means which prove or disapprove any

matter of fact. The truth of the matter of fact is submitted to judicial

investigation. The definition of evidence is also includes certain other media of

proof e.g. The statements of the parties the result of Local Investigation, facts of

which the court takes judicial notice, and any real or personal property.

All documents produced for the inspection of the court such documents are

called documentary evidence. The evidence covers the evidence of witness and

documents evidence.
Kinds of Evidence :

1. Direct Evidence and circumstantial evidence.

2. Direct Evidence and Hear say Evidence

3. Oral Evidence and documentary evidence

4. Primary evidence and secondary evidence

5. Real evidence and personal evidence

6. Substantive evidence and non substantive evidence.

Direct Evidence ( Best Evidence Rule).

1. If a person who saw the fact comes and gives evidence then it is

direct evidence.

2. If a person who heard a fact comes and given evidence then it is

direct evidence.

3. If a person who perceived a fact comes and given evidence, then it

is direct evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence

The Circumstances which existed at the time of committee of the offence never

change and hence, they have very important evidentiary value. But conviction

based purely on circumstantial evidence must be done continuously.

Leading case on circumstantial evidence:

KaniniSahuani Vs. Punnachandra Sahoo and others

The Plaintiff, the legally married life of defendant No.1 filed a suit for recovery

of articles which included gold ornaments given as dairy to the defendant and

other or in the alternative the price for the same amounting to Rs. 16,440/- with

future interest

2.The Learned subordinate judge after hearing all the necessary issues and

receiving evidence adducted by both parties decreed the suit in part directing

the defendants to return the Plaintiffs wearing ornaments failing which the

Plaintiff shall recover a sum of Rs. 972 from then, but he rejected her claim to

bold ornaments, as it was not proved by her.

3.In the appeal, the Orissa High Court held that from the evidence adduced by

the Plaintiff that she life the husband’s house in an unpleasant situation and so

it cannot be believed that under such circumstances, the defendants would be

allowed her to take away all the ornaments she had brought with her a swell as

the ornaments that were presented to by her by defendant No.2

4.The court further held that the facts and circumstances and the broad

probabilities of the case lead us to believe that the plaintiff was not allowed to

take back her gold ornaments which she had brought as dowry to the house of

the defendants.
5.The court decided the case in the Plaintiff favour and calculating the value of

the gold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per tola for 12 tolas of golden ornaments it

awarded Rs. 4800/- which the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants

in addition to Rs. 972 awarded by the learned subordinate judge.

2) Direct Evidence and Hear Say Evidence.:

Hear Say Evidence:

Generally hereby evidence is no evidence at all. A hear say evidence is that

evidence which is not based upon personal vision of hearing, but based on the

learning through the medium of a third person. For Ex. If A seen the Commission

of the murder and given evidence in a count, then it is direct evidence and it is

valid. If A says something to B and if B comes and given Evidence in a court,

then it is here say Evidence.

It is also known as derivative evidence or second hand evidence or transmitted

evidence.

3) Oral Evidence and documentary evidence

Oral Evidence

Generally both oral and documentary evidences are produced to prove a case.

The General rule is that when there is a document to prove a matter, this oral
evidence should not be produced but only documentary evidence should be

produced.

In the following circumstances, oral evidence can be produced

Appointment of Public Servant may be provided by actual acting as the Public

Servant. Here appointment order is not necessary.

1) Will may be proved by probates

2) Interpretation of documents may be way of oral evidence.

Documentary Evidence:

The basis of the rule is to produce the list available Evidence. So when

documentary evidence is available it is a better oral evidence

In the following instances documentary evidence alone should be produced.

1. The contract deed, grant deed transfer of immovable property etc.

should be reduced to writing.

2. When law compulsorily requires some matter to be reduced to

writing.

3. Even if the documentary evidence is available at certain circumstance,

Primary evidence alone should be produced

Tape recorded evidence

The tape is a primary direct evidence. If in admissible to prove as to what has

been said picked up and heard from the recorder.

Mahabir Prasad Vs. Surinder Karur, AIR 1982. The Supreme Court held that the

tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon as a corroborative Evidence

of conservation.

Primary and Secondary Evidence:

The contents of a document can be proved generally by two methods by

producing primary evidence or producing secondary evidence. There are specific

instances in which only Primary Evidence should be produced to prove a case

In other instance secondary evidence is sufficient to prove a case

Secondary Evidence ( Sec 63)

Secondary Evidence is usually given as Evidence in the absence of better

evidence namely primary evidence.

The following are the Secondary Evidences

1) Certified copies of the original document

2) Copies from original by mechanical process

3) Copies compared with originals

4) Counterparts of documents
3.Real Evidence and Personal Evidence

Real Evidence:

Real Evidence is the material Evidence produced for personal inspection of a

judge. It is placed before the judge of his direct inspection / observation to prove

a fact in issue, several material objects are produced before the Judge for his

inspection. Such material objects are called real evidence.

Personal Evidence:

Personal Evidence is the evidence in the form of oral deposition of witness in

the witness box. Here the witness has to come to the court in person and give

evidence in support of or against either party of the disputes.

For Eg. A eye witness to a murder car come to count in person and give evidence

in the witness box. This is called personal evidence.

6. Substantive Evidence and Non Substantive Evidence:

Substantive Evidence:

Substantive Evidence is that evidence which may be relied for the proof or

disproof of the fact in issue and on which a finding may be based.

Non Substantive Evidence

Non Substantive Evidence is that evidence cannot be the basis for the proof or

disproof of the fact in issue. It can only be used to contradict a Substantiary

Evidence. It may also be used to corroborate a substantive evidence.

2.Explain the doctrine of “Res Gestae” with the decided cases?

Introduction:

(Sec – 6 to 17)

The term “Res gestae” means the facts and declaration made incidental to the

main fact or transactions like in the case of murder, stained knife, confession of

the accused etc. They are all incidental to the main facts which include acts,

words, character etc.

The Res gestae in Criminal offences means the complete criminal transaction

from the beginning to end. The facts and declaration must be connected

together and referred by a legal name little crime, contract etc.

Eg: A is Accused of murdering B by stabbing him. The words said or action done

by A or the people on looking the incident at the time of the stabbing or shortly

before or after the incident, which forms part of the transaction is a relevant

fact.

Essentials of Res Gestae :

1.The acts declaration and words must be connected by time. It should be

contemporaneous with the incident and should not be a prior incident.

2.A transaction may consists of a single incident of few minutes or a variety of

facts occupying longer time and occurring on different occasions at different

places. In such a case, where the transaction consists of different acts in order

to establish the claim of acts as part of the same transaction. The acts must take

place at a unity of place. There must be continuity of action and there must be

community of purpose or design.

3.It must be simultaneous with the act. In the given Ex. the statements made by

the persons who have been the incident and who uttered it simultaneously with

the incident or soon after the incident so that the speaker is still under the

excitement of the incident or relevant.

4.It must be under the influence of the act. The physical acts and words at the

time of the commission of the act must be spontaneous

Case Laws

R.Vs. Beding field:

The accused was cutting the throat of woman in the up stairs of a building. The

deceased Woman shouted while coming out of the room ‘Oh Aunt” see what

bending field has done to me” The count held that the words of the deceased
were inadmissible or Res Gestae. If she had cried “Oh Aunt” it would be an

admissible res gestae.

Sawaldas Vs State of Bihar

In this case wife was murdered by the husband his father and mother. As soon

as she was pushed into the room, she had cried for help. The Children who were

playing outside in the veranda Exclaimed that their mother was being killed. The

Exclamation of the Children was admissible as valid res gestae.

Gentela Vs Rao Vs Stat of AP

In this case the accused set fire to a bus, in which some persons were
travelling. Since there was a time gap between the denying declaration by the
persons who were injured and fire incident the statements made by t hem
were not admissible as res gestae i.e. not admissible as part of the same
transaction.
4.What is dying Declaration? What are the condition for its admissibility as

Evidence?

Introduction:

Section 32 (1)

A dying declaration is a statement made by a dead person when he was about

to die as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstance of transaction

resulting in death or as to any of the circumstances of transaction resulting in

death.
It refers to a declaration made by a person by way of signs, verbal

communications, conduct or writing soon before his death or while he is on his

death bed

The dying declaration is admissible or evidence because of the nature and time

of the statement. When a person is under the expectation of death generally he

would speak the truth only.

This declaration can be used as Evidence both in civil and criminal cases.

Essential of a dying declaration:

1.Dying declaration must relate to cause of his death only or refer to

circumstances which caused his death

2.The person making statement i.e the declaring must be found dead after

meeting the statement.

3.There must be proximity of time in making of the statement and time of death.

This is very important while deciding whether the statement is covered under

this category or not

4.The declaration must be mentally fit i.e conviction oriental

5.Dying Declaration can be made to any person a doctor a magistrate, Police or

any other person.

6.The declaration must be competent as a witness condition are admissibility as

evidence.

The whole statement is not admissible as evidence only the following portions

of the dying declaration are admissible as Evidence.

1. If the declaration continues any of the circumstance or transaction under

which his death resulted then such portion which describe the circumstance is

relevant.

9.If the declaration says about the cause of his death thus such portion alone is

admissible..

Patel Hiralal Vs State of Gujarat

The deceased was burnt and she died of the burnt injuries. In her dying

declaration which contained statements regarding the person who tortured her,

she gave a wrong name of the father of the deceased but after investigation,

she clarified the correct name of the further of the accused. It was held that her

statements were admissible as substantive evidence.

In this case the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the word statements

as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death in

the context of dying declaration.

According to Section 32 (1) two categories of statement and are made

admissible as substantive evidence.

• His statement as to the cause of his death

• His statement as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which

resulted in his death

4)What is an Expert? State the circumstances in which expert opinion

becomes relevant?

Introduction

Expert is defined Under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act as the person who is

skilled and has special knowledge and Experience in the following field

• Foreign law

• Science and Art

• Identify of Handwriting

• Identity of Finger impression

• Electronic Evidence

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd

In the above case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has broadly dealt and interrupted

the term Expert.

 a) A Expert is a person who devotes his time and studying to a

special branch of learning. However he might have acquired

such knowledge by practice observation or careful study.

b) The expert is not acting as a Judge or Jury

c) The Real function of the expert is to put before the court all

the materials together with reasons which induce him to

come to the conclusion.

d) An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of

an advisory character.

e) The duty of the expert witness is to furnish the judge with

the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the

conclusions.

f) No expert can claim that he could be absolutely there that

his opinion was correct.

State of Maharastra V/s Damu S/o. Gopinath Shinde and others

In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court further laid down that mere assertion

without mentioning the data or basis in support of his opinion is not Evidence,

even if it come from an expert.

Such Evidence through admissible, may be excluded from consideration as

affording no assistant in arriving at the correct value without examining the

expert as a witness in court. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on an opinion

alone.

Section 51 of the Indian Evidence act provides the grounds of opinion when

relevant according to this section when the opinion of a living person are

relevant, the grounds on which the opinion are formed, is also relevant. For

example various tests conducted by experts for forming an opinion is also

considered to be relevant.

• Facts bearing upon the opinion of the Experts (Section 46)

• Opinion regarding the handwriting ( Section 47)

• Opinions regarding digital signature and its relevancy ( Section 47A)

• Opinion regarding the existence of customs ( Section 48)

• Opinion as to usages and tenants (Section 49)

• Opinion as to the relation ship ( Section 50)

5. What are public documents? How they are proved?

Introduction:

A public document is prepared by a public servant in discharge of his official

duties. All public documents means of a copy without producing the original.

But documents are not proved in this way. Some of them require special proof.

The following documents are public documents (Section 74)

1.Documents forming the acts of records of the acts

a) of the sovereign authority

b) of official bodes and tribunals and

c) of public officers, legislative, Judicial and executive of India or of

the common wealth, or of a foreign country

d) Public records kept in any state of private document.

Example:

1. An Electoral roll is a Public document and hence it does not require any

formal proof and the certified copies of the same are sufficient proof.

2. Records maintained by revenue officers relating to land revenue, survey

and settlement, etc are public documents

3. The documents issued by the concerned government department

indicating the salary and accordance of employees

4. Public records, original wall, registered documents are public documents.

5. Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of a company

are public documents.

• Public documents are proved by Secondary Evidence

• Certified copy of public documents ( Section 76)

• Proof of documents by the Prosecution of certified copies ( Section 77)

• Proof of other official documents ( Section 78)

Kinds of Public Documents

1. Central acts, order or notifications.

2. Proceedings of the legislature

3. Proclamation, orders or regulations

4. The Acts of Executives of Proceedings of the Foreign Legislature

5. Municipal Bodies proceedings

Public Documents of some other claim in a foreign country might be proved by

the original or certified copy issued by the lawful attendance of the document

with a certificate and seal of a notary public or Indian Counsel or diplomatic

agent.

6.Define Estoppel? State the different kinds of Estoppel?

Introduction:

The term “Estoppel” is derived from the word “Estop” which means stop

Estoppel if a rule by which a person is prevented or stopped from denying the

truth of what he had said or done. It is a rule based on the principles of equity

and good condense

Section 115 of the Evidence Act defines Estoppel as when one person has by his

act, declaration or omission intentionally caused another person to believe a

thing to be true and act up on such belief, then the former is not allowed to

deny the truth of such thing in a sent between himself and such other person,

For ex “A intentionally and falsely leads “B” to believe that a certain land

belonged to him, they by he inducted “B” to buy and pay for it. “A” is not the

owner of the Land at the time of sale. So “B” could not get the land, but if “A”

gets the land afterwards or after sale, then “A” is Estopped to deny his previous

representations as the owner of the land.

Ingredients ( Section 115)

A person should have intentionally caused some act, declaration or omission.

Such Act, should be such that it makes a person believe a thing to be true.

Upon such belief, he must act upon it.

Then the first person is not allowed to deny the truth of the thing.

All the above said things should be in a suit or proceeding between himself and

such person or his representatives.

Different types of Estoppel:

1. Estoppel by Deed/ Estoppel by Record.

2. Estoppel by conduct or constructive Estoppel.

3. Estoppel not on point of Laws

 4. Equitable Estoppel.

5. Estoppel by negligence.

6. Estoppel against minors

7. No Estoppel in criminal cases

8. Estoppel of Tenant or license ( Section 116)

9. Estoppel of acceptor of bill, Bailee or Licensee (Section 117)

10.Promissory Estoppel

1.Estoppel by Deed / Estoppel by record:

If any engagement or contract is entered into by deed as to certain facts, then

such person is not allowed to deny such facts. In England a deed is executed in

a formal manner. It is sufficient if it is signed, sealed and delivered. The executor

cannot deny the truth of the deed. But in India, such deed is only an admission

which is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted under it amounts to an c (

Section 31)

Krishnaji Vs Maikendya Durgaram

“A” gifted her property to her daughter “B” In the gift deed, she puts a condition

that after the death of “B” the property will go to “A” s sons. One of the two

sons of “A” indeed a purchaser to buy his sister’s “B” property and only one of

the sons of “A” signed the document and the other son merely attested it is a
witness. The Property came to “A’s sons after death. The purchaser claimed the

property

It was held that the purchaser cannot get the property because of the mere

attention of the contents of the deed. So the estoppel plea fails here

2.Estoppel by conduct or constructive Estoppel

It arise by words, consent approval of the acts of another person, thereby

inducing a third person to do a thing and if the third person sustain any loan,

then the first person cannot deny his consent to it.

Bardown Vs. Chand Singh

“B often declared as though he was the agent of the Principal “A” “A” remained

silent on all such occasions of declarations as agent by “B” if “C” has acted upon

the words and inducement of “A” then “A” is prevented from denying the fact

of his consent of treat ”B” as his agent.

3.Estoppel Not on point of Law:

This refers to a belief in a fact and not in proportion of loss. Estoppel can never

lie on points of Loss and it will lie only on point of fact. One should have believed

the existence of fact and not law of the land.

4.Equitable Estoppel
Indian Evidence act is not Exhaustive to give all the instances of Estoppel. It is

only illustrative. Equity relinquish various instances to apply the rule of

Estoppel. Estoppel is applied hearing regard to the nature and circumstances of

a case. It is known as equitable Estoppel.

Estoppel by negligence:

Because of negligence of one person another person may get right. This right

got by the second person cannot be denied by the first person afterwards. For

ex if “A” is negligent about the wilful declared on of “B” as “A” s agent, then “A”

is liable for all the acts of “B” in the capacity of an agent.

6.No estoppel against minor:

Estoppel is not applicable to minors. If a minor represents that he has attained

majority an thereby induces another to enter into a contract with him then the

minor cannot be Estopped to deny the fact of his minority.

7.No Estoppel in criminal cases:

Estoppel is a rule of civil action and it does not apply to criminal cases.

8.Estoppel of Tenant or License ( Section 116)

A tenant is Estoppel from denying the fact that the person through whom he

claims such tenancy is a land lord and valid title holder of the immovable

property to which he is the tenant.

9.Estoppel of Acceptor of Bill, Bailee, or Licensee ( See 117)

An accepted of Bill or Exchange is prevented from denying the authority of the

dresser to dress such a bill for Ex if “A” is the acceptor of a bill of Exchange and

“B” is the dresser to drew such Bill, then “A” cannot deny the authority of “B”.

Promissory Estoppel:

Promissory Estoppel means that if a person makes a promise to the other person

by words or conduct and if the other person acts on such promise and changes

his position to his detriment, then the person who given such promise is not

allowed to revert back from the promise

Promissory estoppels is an equitable doctrine and therefore it becomes

applicable if larger public interest to requires.

Promissory Estoppel is applicable to government to make it liable for its

promises made to other persons and the government is Estoppel from going

back from such promises made by it.

7.Explain the protection given to the following circumstances under Evidence

act:

A) Communication between husband and wife

B) Communication between client and his advocate

• Communication between husband wife (Section 122)

A married person cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made by

his or her spouse. He/She cannot also be permitted to disclose such

communication generally. But under 3 circumstances a married person is

permitted to disclose the matrimonial communication.

• If such person gives the consent

• If the suit is between husband and wife

• If it is a criminal offence committed by one person

against his or her partner.

Thus, if a husband commits a murder of some other person and tells this to his

wife, his wife cannot compelled to give Evidence of it, Even if she is prepared to

give Evidence, her husband can prevent her from giving such evidence, because

this is a privileged communication between the spouses. The privileged

communication continues. Even after divorce between the spouses.

But if the wife had knowledge a murder from somebody other than her

husband, then this is not a privileged communication and hence this

information can be disclosed

M.C.Verghese Vs T.J Ponnan

Facts:
Rathi, daughter of Varghese, was married to Ponnan in 1964. After the marriage,

Ponnan and Rathi were living separately, Ponnan wrote from Bombay letters to

Rathi who was then residing with her parents at Trivandrum. The letters

contained defamed by statements concerning her.

Varghese the father of Rathi, filed a criminal complaint on her behalf, in the

District Magistrate Court against Ponnan for the offence of defamation.

8) Communication between client and his advocate ( Section 126)

A Barrister, Pleader , Advocate or attorney cannot be compelled or permitted

without the express consent of his client to disclose the following matters.

• Any communication made by his client to him

• Any advice given by the advocate to his client

• The contents of a document about which he has got

knowledge.

Thus communication, advice, knowledge with regard to

document must be in the course of his employment. But

the following matters are not privileged communications.

• Any communication made in furtherance of an illegal act.

• Any advice by the advocate to his client for any criminal

purpose
For communications of civil wrongs committed by the client, after the

commencement of the Engagement as an advocate, there is an obligation on

the parts of the Advocate as not to disclose such communication and it

continues. Even after the Engagement leases. But it must not be for criminal

purpose.

For Ex. A client says to B an Advocate, that he had committed forgery. This is

not criminal purpose, and therefore, it is a privileged communication. “A” a

client says to “B” an Advocate, that he wishes to obtain some property by filing

a suit with some forged documents. This is for a criminal purpose and so it is not

a privileged communication.

Write a note on confession by co-accused (Section 30)

In joint offences or conspiracy cases, the confession of co-accused can be used

an evidence against the other accused persons, but the general role is that

evidence of the co-accused should not be considered because such evident is

trained as he was corroborator in the commission of the crime.

Confession of co-accused implicating co-accused (Section 30) Section 30 deals

with the Exception to the rule that a confusion cannot bind any person other

than the maker of it.

When two or more persons are tried jointly for the some offence, one of them

makes a confession which affects him self and the others, the court may take it

into consideration not only against the person who confessed, but also against

the others.

Illustration:

X and Y are jointly tried for the offence of murder of Z

X confessed Y and I murdered Z the court may consider the effect of their

confession against Y.

The Privy council in Bhubani V. King discussed the Except scope of Section 30-

confession of co-accused.

1) It is a weak type of It is not based on oath, not in the

presence of the co-accused, not it can be cross Examined

2) It can be only a supporting Evidence not amounting poof.

The Supreme Court approved these observations of privy council in a case of

Kashmira Singh Vs State of M.P. It held the confession of an accused cannot be

used as a substantive piece of Evidence against co-accused. The principle is that

where there is Evidence against the co-accused which is sufficient and if the

court believes to support his conviction, then confession of co-accused

described U/s 30 may be used as an additional reason for believing that evidence
9.Write a note on Alibi

Introduction:

( Section 11)

The section enables an accused to plead ALIBI i.e absence at the time of

commission of offence. The fact that the accused was far away from the scene

of the offence in constituent with the fact in issue viz, a crime was committed.

But under the section it is relevant to prove that the accused could not have

committed the offence.

Eg. The question was whether A committed a member in Chennai. The fact that

on that day “A” was in Delhi in relevant

To admit collateral fact as relevant, the collateral fact must be first established

as conclusive Evidence and it must afford a reasonable presumption as to the

matter in dispute.

Thus, in certain cases, the judgment in a previous suit to which one of the parties

in the subsequent suit was not a party, may be admitted as Evidence.

Illustration:

(a) The question is whether “A” committed a crime at Calcutta on certain

day
 The fact that, on that day, “A” was at Lathore in 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, through not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

(b) The question is , whether “A” Committed a crime. The circumstances are

such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D.

Every fact which should that the crime could have been committed by no

one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D in relevant

State of Maharashtra V. Narsing Rao

A plea of Ali must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely

exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place

of occurrence of crime.

Soma Bai Vs State of Gujarat:

It is well settle that a plea of alibi has got to be proved to the satisfaction of

the court.

11.Define Admission Distinguish it from confession ?

Introduction:

( Section 17-23)
An “admission” is a statement either oral or documentary suggesting any

inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact made by certain persons under

certain circumstances as mentioned here under ( Section 17)

Generally admission are very weak evidence, and may be rejected if the other

circumstances shows that they are not true.

An admission in the best evidence against the party making it, and it is not

conclusive, but shifts from one party to the other.

In general admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact. In law, admissions

go against the interest of the person making the admission.

Ingredients of Admission:

1) Admission should be made voluntary, in order to have the effect of

substantive evidence.

2) An admission is an oral or documentary statement Eg. Letters,

Affidavits, deeds, receipts, plaints etc.

3) It suggests some inference.

4) Such inference is regarding any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Distinguish between Admission an Confession

Sl. Admission Confession

No
1. Admission usually relates to civil Confession usually relates to criminal
transaction transaction
2. Admission is statement oral or Confession statement is written or oral
written which given inference which is direct of administration of the
about the liability of person making fact
admission
3. Admission made by one of the Confession made by one or two or more
several defendants accused jointly tried for the same offence
4. All admissions are not confession All confessions are admission
5. The Expression of admission means The Expression confection means a
“Voluntary acknowledgment of the statement made by an accused admitting
existence his guilt
6. An admission is genius Confession in specie
7. The term admission is applicable to Confession is the term for admission of
a statement oral or in writing made guilt made in the criminal side
by a party civil side
8. An admission may be made by an While an agent can never make the
agent in course of business confession of an offence against a co-
defendants
9. Section 17-23 Section 24-30

11.Write a note on leading questions?

Introduction:

(Section 141-143)
A heading question is a question in which the answer is suggested to the witness.

The answer for such or question will always be “yes” or “No”. For E.g your name

Krishna? Hence the answer is present in the question itself.

The answer for this “Yes” or “No” such questions should not be asked in chief

examination, but to a hostile witness, it may be allowed. It is allowed only in the

cross examination, to extract the truth with permission of the count. But when

the fact is introductory or undisputed or her already been sufficiently proved,

then questions cannot be objected to as leading.

If suggestion to the witness the answer which is desired that he should give. But

if it merely suggests a subject, without suggesting an answer or a specific thing,

it is not a leading question.

Leading questions cannot be ordinarily be asked in Examination in chief or re

examination. If allowed, it would enable a party to prepare his story and evolve

it in his very words from the mouth of his witness in court. It would tend to

reduce the chance of detection of a false story.

Heading questions can only be asked in examination in chief they refer to

matter, which are

1) Introductory 2) undisputed or 3) sufficiently proved

12) Define Secondary Evidence? State the cases in which secondary evidence

relating to documents may be given?

Introduction:

(Section 63)

Secondary evidence is usually given as evidence in the absence of better

evidence namely primary evidence

The following are the secondary evidences

1) Certified copies of the original documents

2) Copies from original by mechanical process

3) Copies compared with originals

4) Counter parts of documents

5) Oral accounts as to the contents of the documents.

Cases in which Secondary evidence relating to documents may given ( Section

65)

1) When the original is in the possession

• The person against whom the document is sought to be

proved.

• Any person out to reach of the court

 • Any person legally bound to produce it, and even after

the court notice, such person does not produce it, then

the secondary evidence is admissible.

2) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been

proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved

or by his representative, then written admission is admissible.

3) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering

evidence of its contents cannot produce it in reasonable time, then

secondary evidence is admissible.

4) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable then

secondary evidence is admissible.

5) When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74

then certified copy of the document is admissible.

6) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by

this act, or by any other law to be given in evidence, then certified copy

of the document is admissible.

7) When the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot conveniently be Examined in count and the fact to be

proved is the general result of the whole collection, thus evidence of the

Examiner is admissible.
13. What is burden proof? On whom it lies?

Introduction:

Section 101

When there are two parties to a dispute then the question arises as to who

has to prove a fact. The answer is that each party has to establish facts which

go his favour or against his opponent. This is called burdens of proof.

The burden of proof means the obligation to prove a fact. When a person is

bound to prove the existence or non existence of any facts, then the burden

proof lies on that person. This is the legal burden or burden on pleadings. For

Eg. “A” says that “B” has committee a murder. Here the burden of proof is

on “A” to prove that “B” has committed the murder.

If no evidence is given on either side in a case, the case will end in one’s

favour. So the other side has the burden of proof. This is called evidence

burden.

Burden Proof (Section 101)

If any person desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or

liability dependent on the Existence of facts which he asserted, he must

prove that such facts Exist. When a person is bound to prove the Existence

of any fact, then the burden proof lies on that person.

Illustrations:

A desires a count to give judgment that “B” should be punished for a crime

which “A” says “B” has committed. A must prove that “B” has committed the

Crime.

b) A desires a count to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land

in the possession of “B” by reason of facts which he asserts, and which

“B” denies to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts. Person

on whom burden of proof lies ( Section 102) This section fixes the party

on whom the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof lies upon the party

whose cause would fail, if no evidence were given on either side.

This section states on whom does the burden of proof shall lie. In a case

or a suit, the burden of proof usually lies on the person who will suffer if

the same is not proved. This means that it is necessary for a person to

prove his case since he was the one who has filed a complaint / suit.

Person filing such complaint or suit will have to bear the loss if he/she is

unable to convince the court with the facts that they are stating.

Illustration:

1) Sunil has filed a case stating that the land which is in possession of Anil

belongs to him. Here the burden of proof is on the one who will suffer

if he/she does not prove that the land belongs to him then Axis will
 continue to have possession of the land and Sunil will suffer by losing

his land.

2) “A” Seen “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”.

14.Explain the different kinds of privileged communication?

Introduction:

( Section 121-132)

If is because of the privilege given to certain persons and any communication

made out of such privilege is a privileged communication and it need not be

disclosed in a court of Law.

It is based on the ground of public policy and convenience. The privilege may

be given to the witnesses, State Government or any other person..

The following are privileged communications

1) Evidence of judicial officers (Sec 121)

2) Conjugal communication (section 122)

 3) Affairs of the State ( Sec 123)

4) Official communications ( Sec 124)

5) Information as to communication of offence (section 125)

6) Professional Communications,

7) Confidential communications

8) Privilege as to production, a title deeds of witness not a party

(Section 130)

9) Production of documents or electronic records (Section 131)

10) Privileges of witness during trial or proceeding (Sec 132)

15. What is 1) Examination in chief

2) Cross Examination

3) Re Examination of Witness

1) Examination in Chief (Section 137)

This is the examination of a witness by the party calling him. The Advocate of

the calling party examines the witness and brings out the facts.

Rules of chief Examination:

1) No leading question should be asked.

2) Improper venation should be avoided.

3) The judge may ask questions

 4) If the witness becomes a hostile witness, leading questions as in a cross

examination are allowed

5) The examination must be brief, direct and relevant

Objectives of Chief Examination:

1) Legally sufficient to meet the burden of proof

2) Understood and remembered

3) Convincing

4) Able to withstand cross examination and

5) Anticipatory and contradictory of Evidence that the opposition will

present

2) Cross Examination

It is the Examination of the witness by the opponent ( adverse) party. It is very

important to bring out the truth or actual facts. The ability of the advocate lies

in cross examination.

Rules of cross examination:

The following are the rules

1) Leading questions are allowed

2) Question relating to character and conduct of the witness are allowed

3) It must be only on relevant facts

 4) The court may disallow question which are indecent or vulgar.

5) The judge may ask questions to the witness

6) No cross examination can be allowed of a witness who is summoned

to produce a document (Section 139)

Objects of cross examination

The objects of cross examination are to impeach the accuracy, credibility and

general value of the evidence given in chief, to screen and filter the facts already

stated by the witness, to detect and expose discrepancies, or the Elicit

suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross examining party.

Purpose of cross Examination:

The purpose of Cross examination is two folded firstly the cross examined tries

to find the story told by the witness in examination in chief as to whether it is

tainted by Exaggerations or false hoods. Secondly, the adverse party builds his

line of defence from the truth extracted from the witness

Question asked in cross Examination:

1) To test his veracity

2) To discover who he is and what in his position in life

3) To shake his credit by injury his character although his answer might

expose him to penalty or forfeiture.

3.Re Examination of Witness :

It is made by the party calling the witness. If now facts are introduced in the

cross examination by the other party Advocate, then the re-examination, it may

be disapproved

1) Leading questions are allowed only with the connect of the Judge.

2) The Judge may ask question after the re-examination

3) New fact should be introduced only with the permission of the court.

4) A Second Examination may be allowed to the opponent party. This

very rare and usually not allowed by the judge

Exclusion of Evidence to contradict answers to questions testing Veracity

(Section 153)

When a witness has been asked and when he has answered any question which

is relevant to the inquiry. Only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injury

his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him, but if he answers

falsely, he may afterwards be changed with giving false evidence.

Evidence as to matters in writing (Section 144)

This section is meant to Enable parties to carry out the provisions of section 93

and 92. A party can come the opposite party to produce a document.
16. Explain the circumstances in which facts not otherwise relevant become

relevant?

Introduction:

(Section 11)

Section 11 clause 1 says that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they

are in constituent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. It means facts which are

not relevant are relevant. If they are in in consistent with the fact in issue

Alibi Evidence – Earlier Answer

Clause (2) of section 11 says that a fact in relevant if it makes the Existence of a

fact in issue highly probable or improbable

In the same manner, where the question was whether a person was a habitual

cheat, the fact that the person belonged to an organization which generally

cheats and is formed for that purpose is relevant

Illustration:

(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on certain day

The fact that, on that day “A” was at Lathore is relevant. The fact that,

near the time when the crime was committed, which would render it

highly improbable though not impossible that he committed it is relevant.

(b) The question is, whether “A” committed a crime .

 The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed

either by A, B, C or D . Every fact which should that the crime could have

been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either

B, C or D is relevant.

State of Maharashtra V Narsingrao

A plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely

exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of

occurrence of crime

17.Discuss the relevancy of character evidence.

Introduction:

(Section 52-53)

Generally a man’s character is not relevant to prove or disprove a fact. The court

tries the case and not the man. A bad character man may have a good name

and there is no rule to decide the character of a person in relation to a particular

case. But in some cases, the character of a witness or the offender is Examined.

Regarding character of a party the relevancy depends upon this facts whether

the character is an issue or not an issue and whether the case is civil or criminal.

Civil Cases (Section 52)

Generally a man’s character is not relevant to prove or disprove a fact. The court

tries the case and not the man. A bad character man may have a good name and

there is no rule to decide the character of a person in relation to a particular

case. But in some cases, the character of a witness or the offender is Examined.

Regarding character of a party, the relevancy depends upon the facts whether

the character is an issue or not an issue and whether the case is civil or criminal.

Civil cases (Section 52)

In civil cases character is not at all considered and it is relevant. But only in

defamation cases, the character of the defamed person is considered for

awarding damages.

Abdul Shakeer and others Vs Kotwaleshwar Prasad and others:

The court held that where the contention that certain promotes had been

obtained from the insolvent while he was under the influence of drink has been

found to be baseless, mere general bad character of the insolvent would be

quite irrelevant in a civil case to prove want of consideration

Criminal Cases (Section 53 & 54)

The good character of the accused is always relevant and admissible in criminal

cases
 1) The bad character of the accused, is not considered. There are two

exceptions. If the accused given evidence of his good character, then

the prosecution ( Police) can disapprove it by giving evidence of his bad

character.

2) When the fact in issue is the bad character of the offender, then the

character of the person is admissible. A previous conviction of the

accused is an evidence of his bad character.

3) By way of defence, one can prove the bad character of the complaint,

for Ex when a man is accused of rape, then he can show evidence for

the immoral character of the women.

4) In criminal proceedings, the good character of the accused is relevant

as it gives the opinion that the accused may not have committed the

crime.

5) New Section 53A by the criminal loss amendment Act, 2013 Evidence

of character or previous sexual experience is not relevant in certain

cases.

In prosecution of an offence under Section 354, 354 A, 354 B, 354C, 354D, 376,

376B, 376C, 376 D and 376 E or attempt to commit any of such offences, where

the question of consent is in issue, the evidence of character of the victim or of

such previous sexual experiences with any person is not relevant.

The value of character Evidence

1) The good character of a person is always relevant

2) The bad character of a person is relevant and not admissible

3) Only to disapprove the good character of the offender evidence of

bad character is allowed.

4) Character evidence is week evidence.

5) In doubtful cases, the good character of the offender plays an

important role to decide the case in his favour.

Bhagawan Swaroop Vs State of Maharashtra

Swaroop and Eleven others were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy

to commit criminal breach of trust of millions of rupees from an insurable

company. All of them were convicted by the sessions judge. In the appeal to the

Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upheld in decision of the High court.

According to Section 140 a witness to character evidence may be cross examined

and re-examined.

Character as affecting damages ( Section 55)

In civil cases, the character of any person which would affect the amount of

damages which he ought to receive in relevant, the word character includes

both reputation and disposition. Howe ever evidence can be given only of
general reputation and general disposition and No. 1 of particulars acted by

which reputation or disposition were shown.

18. Write a note an presumption as to legitimacy of child

Introduction:

( Section 112)

Regarding the proof of legitimating of a child, the burden of proof is on the party

who does not accept the legitimacy of the child.

When the particular relationship such as marriage is shown to Exist, then its

continuance is Presumed by the fact that any person was born.

* During the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man

or

* within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution the mother remaining

unmarried

Here, it is a conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man. Thus the

proof that a child is born during the wedlock between a man and women in

sufficient to establish its legitimacy. Then the burden of proof shifts to the other

party, trying to establish that the child was not born out of the wedlock
19. Define Evidence ? Distinguish between relevancy and admission of

evidence.

Sl. Relevancy Admission of Evidence

No
1. It is found on the basis of the It is established on does not on the

rationale & human Experience rationale

2. The provision regarding relevancy is The Provision of admissibility is

discussed under section 5 to 55 of declined under Section 56 of the

the Evidence act Indian Evidence Act

3. Its mainly Emphasis on what fact are Between relevancy and proof, it acts

necessary to prove before the court as a decisive factor

or not

4. Relevancy is basically a cause It mainly as effect

5. It is basically implies the relevant It mainly forces what facts are

facts admissible and what facts are not

admissible

6. The court has the power to apply The discretion cannot be applied by

discretion in relevancy the court in admissible

7. Admissible facts can be relevant Relevant facts are not admissible

 8. At the Point when certainties are so At the point when facts have been

related to render the presence or announced to be lawfully significant

non presence of different facts under I.E act they become admissible.

likely as indicated by the normal

course of occasion or human

conduct they are called relevancy

21. Oral Evidence in all cases whatever be direct explain the statement with

exceptions.

Introduction:

( Section 60)

All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it, by

witnesses in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry are called oral

evidence. In simple terms, the evidence of witness given oral is called oral

evidence. Oral evidence includes the statements of witnesses before the court

and with the permission of the court.

Poof of fails by oral evidence ( Section 59)

All facts, except the contents of documents ( or electronic records) may be

proved by oral evidence. A witness who cannot speak can communicate his

knowledge of facies to the court by signs or by writing.

This is also oral evidence.

Oral evidence includes all statements which the court, permits or requires to be

made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry Section

All facts except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence.

Contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence under certain

circumstances i.e When evidence of their contents is admissible as secondary

evidence.

Direct evidence (Best evidence Rule) Section 60

The following are the conditions for direct evidence or rule against hearsay

evidence.

1) If a person who saw a fact comes and given evidence, then it is direct

evidence

2) If a person who heard a fact comes and given evidence, then it is direct

evidence.

3) If a person who perceived a fact comes and give evidence, then it is direct

evidence.
 4) If a person who holds an opinion about a fact comes and given evidence,

then it is direct evidence.

In all the above four instances, the fact should be such that it could be seen,

heard, perceived or caused the formation of opinion

Hearsay Evidence

Generally Hearsay evidence is no evidence at all. A hearsay evidence is that

evidence which is not based upon personal vision or hearing, but based on the

learning of the news through the medium of a third person:

For Eg. If A sees the commission of the murder and given evidence in a court,

then it is direct evidence and it is valid. If A says something to B and if B comes

and given evidence in a court, then it is hearsay evidence.

Exceptions

Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 basically given as a structure to

exception to A action 60. It has certain Exceptions.

1) Res gestae

2) Admission and Confession

3) Dying declaration

4) Evidence of the previous disposition of Witness

5) Evidence with regard to entries in books of accounts.

 6) Entries in public or other official books

7) Statement in government charts, maps, plans

8) Statements in acts and notifications

9) Statements in authorized legal publication

10) Visual display of video recording

11) Observation report of the investigating officer.

Case Laws

1. R Vs Beding filed

Earlier Answer

2. Pakala Narayanaswamy Vs Emperor

The deceased received a letter from Pakala Narayanaswamy ‘s wife on 20th

March. She had invested him to their house. The deceased told his wife that he

was going to Narayanaswamy’s house on 21st March as per the letter written

by Narayanaswamy’s wife. On 23rd in Puri railway station the deed body of the

deceased was found in a carriage. Pakala Narayanaswamy was suspected and

arrested.

The deceased wife gave evidence of his ( her husband’s) statement that he was

proceeding to Narayanaswamy that the statement was only hearsay evidence

and not dying declaration.

But the court held that the statement was dying declaration because it stated

about the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death

So a statement made, before the deceased receives any injury, or before the

cause of death has arisen or before the deceased had any reason to anticipate

being killed is also admissible as a dying declaration.

22) Explain the presumptions in Rape and dowry death cases:

Introduction:

Presumption as to dowry death ( Section 113-B)

If the question in that whether a person has committed the dowry death of a

woman and if it is shown that immediately before her death, the woman was

subjected by the other person has caused the dowry death.

1) The presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the

offence under section 304 B, IPC.

2) The Woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or his relatives.

3) Such cruelty or harassment must be for any demand for dowry

4) Such cruelty or harassment must have taken place immediately before

her death

Presumption in Rape ( Section 114A)

If the sexual intercourse by the accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code ( Rape) is proved, the question is whether the sexual intercourse was
without the consent of the woman allegedly raped. If she strikes in her
evidence before the court that she did not consent, then the court shall
presume that she did not consent.
As most of the rapes takes place in a scheduled place, rarely there can be direct

evidence. So the statement made by the victim of the rape alone can be offered

as evidence.

Generally, the statement made by the victim of rape is treated as accomplice

evidence and hence requires to be corroborated by other independent

Evidence. This amended provision provides that if rope is alleged, the court must

presence that no comment was given by the alleged victim.

So if sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, the burden of proving consent

of the victim is shifted to the accused. If the accused fails to prove the existence

of consent by the woman, then he is liable to be held guilty. If is not for the

victim of rape to prove that there was no consent. It is for the accused to place

material to show that there was consent.

Case Law:

Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs state of Andhra Pradesh once the sexual intercourse

by the accused is proved and the victim of the rape station that she did not

consent, the count must presume that she did not consent. The following
 condition have to be satisfied to raise an adverse presumption against the

accused of rape for the absence of consent.

1) The fact of sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim

must be proved.

2) The count must decide whether such intercourse was with or without

the consents of the alleged rape victim.

3) The statement of the victim before the court must be that she had not

given her consent.

23) What are leading questions ? When these can be asked? Leading questions

may be asked in the following cases.

1) According to section 143 of the Indian Act, leading question may be asked in

cross examination.

2) Under Section 142 In examination in chief, leading questions can only be

asked with the permission of court in certain matters.

3) When the witness has defective memory it may be agitated by a few leading

questions.

4) When the object of the leading question is to contradict another witness as

to the expression used by him is at which denies having asked, the witness may

be asked leading questions.

24) Write a note an public document?

Earlier Answer

25) Write a note on hostile witness?

(Section 154)

Question by party to his own witness ( Section 154)

As per section 154, a court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a

witness to put any questions him which might be put in cross examination by

the adverse party

A hostile witness is a witness who change sides and given evidence against the

party calling him. In India, generally the witness called by the police give

evidence in favour of the accused as against the prosecution presumably he

been won over by the opposite party. Such witnesses are called hostile witness

When a witness turn a hostile witness leading question are alleged even in the

chief examination and in the re examination to extract the truth. Acquisition as

to his previous statements in writing may also be asked.

The court must declare that he is hostile witness.

The statement of the hostile witness is not an evidence.

It is totally irrelevant and the court will not consider it

But it is discretion of the court. Here questions regarding the impeachment of
the credit of the witness can be asked. The court may permit a party to cross
examine his own witness if he turns hostile. Direction is given to the court to
allow or not to allow a person to cross examine his own witness as hostile. The
witness may be asked leading question ( Section 143) or question as to his
previous statements
in writing (Section 145) or any questions under section 146 or his credit may be

impeached ( Section 155)

R.K Dey Vs Orissa

The court held that a witness should Exhibit an element of hostility from a

material statement made before an earlier authority or not be speaking the

truth. There must be some material to show that the witnesses is not speaking

the truth.

Guru Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

In this case, the supreme court held that just because a witness declared hostile

witness his entire evidence should not be excluded or treated to be unworthy

of consideration. The court has discretion to consider whether other parts of the

testimony of such witness can be believed.

26) Discuss the relevant faces showing preparation, motive and conduct?

Introduction:

( Section 8)
Sections 8 says that facts constituting a motive or preparation for any fact in

issue or relevant fact is relevant. The motive in during a party to commit an act

or the preparation made by him in the commission of the act is relevant. Thus

motive or preparation is taken into account in cases depending upon

circumstantial evidence alone. Thus, register in admissible when it relates to

the root cause of the commission of a crime.

Illustrations:

a) A is tried for the murder of B

The facts that A murdered C that B knew that had murdered C and B

had tried to had Expert money from A by threatening to make his

knowledge public are relevant.

b) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.

The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that

which was administered to B, is relevant.

c) The question is whether A robbed B

The facts that, after B was robbed, C Said in and A’s presence, the

police are coming to look for the men who robbed B and that

immediately afterwards A ran away are relevant.

Motive: For every voluntary cut there is a motive

It is an emotion which leads a man to a particular act. The motive of a person is

generally proved by the conduct of person.

Motive plays an important role in a crime and it is a relevant factor for which

evidence may be adduced. A motive prompts a person to form an intention to

do certain illegally act or even a legal act but with illegal means to achieve that

intention. But lack of motive does not make the accused an innocent person.

In the case of dowry death motive in inherence. When only circumstantial

evidence is available in dowry death cases, motive plays a vital role. Premarital

demand for dowry and its non compliance by the brides family are relevant facts

to prove the motive of dowry death

In kundula Bala Subramaniyam Vs State of AP the son in law wanted the father

in law to register a land in his name. But the father in law wanted to register the

land in his daughter’s name.

The daughter in law was brutal and the strong motive of the accused – husband

and mother in law in committing the crime was relevant.

Preparation

1) The conduct of any party in reference to suit or proceeding.

2) The conduct of any party in reference to fact an issue or relevant in

the suit or proceedings and

 3) The conduct of the victim of the crime are relevant facts.

The condition is that the conduct must be influence or be influenced by the fact

in the issue or relevant fact. The conduct prior to and subsequent to the fact in

issue or relevant fact in relevant.

“Conduct “ means and includes statements which accompany and explain acts
other than statements when the conduct or any person is relevant, any
statement
made to him or made in his presence and hearing affecting such conduct in

relevant.

* If the victim makes a complaint immediately after the occurrence,

setting out the circumstances under which the offences was committed, it is

relevant as a conduct.

* The statements and the acts of the person injured were held to be

relevant

Sankaran Vs State of Kerala.

In this case, the husband killed his wife by strangulating her. He pleaded insanity

as a ground for his innocent. But prior to the commission of the murder. It was

proved that he was same. After the commission of the offence, his sanity was

proved by the relevant facts like his act of dragging the dead body and making
it lie in the veranda and his act of threatening the children that if they raise noise,

they would also killed. His conduct showed his sand state of mind.

27) What is confession ? Discuss the Evidentiary value of confession of Co

accused

Introduction:

( Section 24 to 30)

The word “Confession” is not defined in the act sir Stephen defines it as
follows: Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with
the crime, stating or suggesting some inference that he has committed that
offence” In
English law the terms “Admission” is used in civil cases while the term

“Confession” is used in Criminal Cases.

The privy council in Pakala Narayanaswamy Vs . Emperor defined confession as

follows:

A confession must in words admit the offence or it must substantially contain all

the facts which contribute to the offence

For Ex the accused may admit that he was the owner of a revolver which accused

the death of a person. This is not confession because it does not contain any

direct acknowledgment of the offence. It gives an inference to the guilt. Only a

plain confession like I killed Rama is direct acknowledgement of guilt.

Rules regarding confession ( Section 24)

1) It should not be made due to threat, inducement etc. i.e it should be

made voluntarily.

2) It must be made only after that inducement threat etc were fully

removed.

3) It should not make to a police officer

4) If the accused in the custody of police then it should be made in the

presence of magistrate

5) Confession it relevant only against the accused and not against any other

person.

6) Confession can be made only by the accused and not others.

Palvinder karur Vs State of Punjab

Confession is an admission made at any time by a person changed with the

crime, stating or suggesting some inference that he has committed that offence.

In this case, the count held that an admission of a gravely incriminating fact is

not of itself a confusion. The term admission of incriminating fact mans that it

is a fact to accuse self of a crime or other wrongful fact confession is applicable

only to criminal cases.

Confession of a Co-accused ( Section 30)

In joint offences or conspiracy cases the confession of a co-accused can be used

as evidence against the other accused persons. But the general rule is that

evidence of the co accused should not be considered because such evidence is

tainted a she was corroborator in the commission of the crime.

Section 30 deals with the expectation to the rule that a confession cannot bind

any person other than the maker of it.

When two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence one of them

makes a confession which affairs himself and the others the court may take it

into consideration not only against the person who confessed but also against

the others.

Illustration:

X and y are jointly tried for the offences of murder of Z X confined Y and Z

murdered Z. The court may consider the effect of this confession against Y

The privy council Bherbari Vs King document the exact scope of section 30 –

confession of co-accused

1) It is a weak type of confession

2) Section 30 does not define the co-accused evident

3) It is not based on the oath, not in the pregender of the co-

accused not it can cross examined

 4) It can be only a supporting evidence not amounting to proof

The Supreme Court approved these observations of privy council in a case of

Kashmira Singh Vs State of MP. It held that the confession of an accused can not

be based on a substantive piece of Evidence against co-accused. The principle

is that where there is evidence against the co-accused which is sufficient and if

the court believes to support his conviction. Then confession of co-accused

described U/s 30 may be used as the additional reason for believing that

evidence

28. Explain the conditions of relevancy of dying declaration?

Introduction:

The whole statement is not admissible as evidence only the following portions

of the dying declaration are admissible as evidence.

1. If the declaration contains any of the circumstances or transaction

under which is death resulted, then such portion which describe the

circumstance as relevant.

2. If the declaration says about the cause of his death., then such position

alone is admissible.

Patel Hiralal Jotiram Vs State of Gujarat

The deceased was burnt and the died of the burn injuries. In her dying

declaration which contained statements regarding the person who tortured her,

she gave a wrong name of the further of the accused, but after investigation,

she clarified the correct name of the father of the accused. It was held that has

statement, were admissible, as substantive Evidence.

In this case Supreme Court interrupted the meaning of the words “statements

as to any of the circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death in

the context of dying declaration.

Substantive Evidence:

According to Section 32 (1) his categories of statements are made admissible as

substantive evidence.

They are

1) His statement as to the cause of his death

2) His statement as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which

resulted in his death.

29. Explain the relevance of character Evidence in civil and criminal cases?

Introduction:

(52-55) Civil cases ( Section 52)

In civil cases, character is Relevant considered are it is relevant. But only in

defamation cases, the character of the defamed person in considered for

awarding damages.

Abdul Shankar & others Vs Kotwaleshwar prsaad and others.

The court held that where the contention that certain promotes had been

obtained from the insolvent which he was under. The influence of drink, has

been found to be baseless. Mere general bad character of the insolvent would

be quite irrelevant in a civil case to prove want of consideration.

2) Criminal cases ( Section 53 & 54)

The good character of an accused in always relevant and admissible in criminal

cases

1) The bad character of the accused is not considered there are two

exception. If the accused given evidence of his good character, then

the prosecution can disapprove it by giving evidence of his bad

character..

2) When the fact in issue is the bad character of the offender, then the

character of the person in admissible. A previous conviction of the

accused is an evidence of his bad character

 3) By way of defence, one can prove the bad character of the

complainant. For Ex. When a man is accused of rape, then he can show

evidence for the immoral character of the woman.

4) In criminal proceeding, the good character of the accused is relevant

as it given the opinion that the accused may not have committed the

crime.

5) New Section 53A by the criminal law amendment act 2013 Evidence

of character or previous sexual experience is not relevant in certain

cases.

30. Discuss the privileges available to communication between advocates &

clients?

Introduction:

( Section 126)

A barrister, Pleader, Advocate, or attorney cannot be compelled or permitted

without the Express consent of his client to disclose the following matters.

1) Any communication made his client to him.

2) Any advice given by the advocate to his client

3) The content of a document about which he has got knowledge.

Then communication, advice, knowledge with regard to document must be in

the course of his employment. But the following matters are not privileged

communications.

1) Any communication made in furtherance of an illegal act.

2) Any advice by the advocate to his client for any criminal purpose.

For communication of civil wrongs committed by the client, after the

commencement of the engagement as an advocate, there is an obligation on

the part of the advocate as not to disclose such communication and it continues

even after the engagement cases. But it must not be for criminal purpose.

31) Write a note on identification parade:

Section of the evidence act makes the test of identification admissible and a

relevant fact in the court of loss.

What is test identification parade?

In all criminal cases, two important questions have to be answered

1) Whether the alleged offence was committed?

2) If you then who committed alleged offence?

The idea of identification satisfy two needs

 1. To satisfy the investigating agency, before sending the case for a trial to

a court, that the person arrested for the offence, who was not previously

known to the witness was one of those who committed the offence.

2. To prima facie satisfy the court that the accused was the offender or the

crime committed.

Sampat Tatyanda Shinde Vs state of Maharashtra

The Evidence of test identification is admissible under section 9 of the Evidence

Act. However it is only a supporting evidence i.e it can be used only to

corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding

identification of the accused as the committee of the criminal act.

The witness is tested whether he is capable to identity an unknown person

whom he saw at the time of occurrence of the crime, among several persons.

It is also tested whether the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused

during the incident, his remembrance capacity and his capacity of identification

of the accused in the court.

Sainuddin VS State of Kerala

In this case, the accused killed his daughter who was 14 years while attempting

to have sexual relationship with here. The neighbours heard the cries of the
daughter, the conversation between the accused and the deceased, and other

relevant sound identification by voice was the sole basis for conviction

32. Explain the circumstances in which the secondary evidence relating to

documents may be given?

Introduction:

( Section 65)

Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a

document in the following circumstances.

1) When the original is in the possession of power

• Of the person against whom the document is sought to

be proved.

• Of any person out of reach of the court.

• Not subject to the process of the court or

• Of any person legally bound to produce it, and even after

the court notice, such person does not produce it, then

secondary evidence is admissible.

2) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been

proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved

or by his representative, then written admission is admissible

 3) When the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering

evidence of its contents cannot produce it in reasonable time, then

secondary evidence is admissible.

4) When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74

then certified copy of the document is admissible.

5) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable, then

secondary evidence is admissible.

6) When the original in a document of which a certified copy is permitted by

this act, or by any other law to be given in evidence, then certified copy

of the document is admissible..

7) When the original consisted of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot conveniently be examined in court and the fact to be proved

is the general result of the whole collection, then evidence of the

examiner is admissible.

33. Define Evidence? The rules of evidence are in general same in civil and

criminal cases, Explain?

Introduction:

In legal terms the burden of proof, admissibility relevance, weight and adequacy

of what ought to be recorded in a legal proceeding is covered by the evidence.

Evidence is significant and crucial in civil and carmine proceedings and it may
incorporate samples of blood, or hair, video, surveillance recording or testimony

from witness

Rules of evidence

1) Relevance

2) Materiality

3) Admissibility

1.Relevance

The concept of relevance plays a key role in finding legal facts. The two basis

principles of Evidence law are

• Without exception, the court may receive anything that

is not relevant as evidence.

• Whatever is relevant is admissible or evidence by the

court, subject to many exception and qualifications

2. Materiality and facts in issue

That fact “A “ is relevant to fact B is not enough to prove fact A in court. Further

more B must be a fact of “material”. The materiality of facts is determined in a

particular case by the law applicable to that case. The depends on the law

defining the offense changed against the accused in a criminal prosecution and
the law setting out the elements of the legal claim brought against the accused

in a civil trial.

3.Admissibility:

Another condition for receiving evidence in legal proceedings must be meet

legal rules prohibit the presentation of evidence in a trial even though it is

relevant to a factual proposition of material and subject matter.

3.Burden proof in criminal and civil proceedings:

In the criminal cases, the general rule is that the prosecution bears the burden

of proving the guilt of the defendant and the substantive law defines what the

prosecution has to prove to convict the defendant. While the rules of civil proof

do not incorporate the same principles enshrined in criminal proceedings.

34.Explain the relevancy of the facts forming the partly same transaction with

illustrations?

Introduction:

(Section 6)

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form

part of the same transactions are relevant , whether they occurred at the same

time and place or at different times and places

Illustrations

(a) A is accused of the murder of “B “ by beating him, whatever was said

or done by “A” or “B” or the by standees at the beating or so shortly

before or after it as to form part of the transaction, if a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking

part in an assured insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops

are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these, facts

is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may

not have been present at all of them.

(c) A Seen 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.

(d) The question is whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered

to A. The goods were delivered to several immediate persons

successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

Facts that are so linked to be fact in question that they form part of the same

transaction, although not in question that they form part of the same
transaction, although not in question, are relevant whether they occurred at

different times and places a the same time.

The principle Embodied in law in Section 6, is usually referred to as the “Re

gestae” doctrine. The facts that can be proved as a part of res gestae must be

facts other then those in question but must be linked to them.

35. Write a note on professional communications

Earlier Answer:

36. No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person

accused of any offence comment? What are the exception recognized under

the Indian Evidence Act?

Introduction:

In India confession made to a police officer, even though voluntary and free from

inducement, etc, it invalid. It is because that the Indian Police apply exertion

torture etc, to get confession even from innocent and ignorant persons, So

confession before a police officer is in admissible

In the case of Anup Bhuyan Vs State Honourable Supreme Court held that

confession is a very week kind of Evidence. Hence courts have to be cautious in

accepting confession made to the police by the accused section 25 says no

confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the accused.

Then statement made by the accused in the course of investigation are valid

under section 52 of Cr.PC all statements made to a police officer are not invalid

but only the statements which amount to confession are invalid.

Under section 25 confession made by the Accused to a police officer cannot be

used against the accused. It follows that it can be used in favour of the accused.

If the confession contain motive for the matter or provocation with a view to

Extenuate the offence, then it may be relied on ( In Re Moti Thevar). In series

of decisions, it was pointed out who are police officers come within the purview

of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Exceptions

1. Kerala Control of organised crime act

A confession made before a police officer with a level higher than that of

superintendent of police (SP) will be considered as evidence against the

individual who made the confession, according to the bill. According to legal

exports, there is an exemption to section 25 of the India Evidence Act, which

states that no confession given to a police official will be admissible evidence

against a person accused of a crime.

2. In the case of Queen Express Vs. Babu Lal

It was noted that there have been several instances where police officers have

used torture techniques to court confession and to secure convictions. If these

confession were made admissible. The Citizen would not be protected from the

cruelty of police officers.

3. In the case of Narayan Rao Vs State of AP

It was stated that the confession given to a police officer would not be

admissible even if the officer is given the title and power of a magistrate

37. Explain the scope and extent of privilege conferred on professional

communication as essential in the evidence Act ( Refer Section 126)

Earlier Answer

Professional Privileges

• State Privileges

• Affairs of the state

• Official communication

• Secret informants

38) Discuss the provisions relating to character evidence ?

(Section 52 to 55)

Earlier Answer
1) Evidence of character is irrelevant in civil cases ( Section 52)

2) Evidence of previous good character is relevant in criminal cases ( Section 53)

3) Evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain

cases

4) Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply ( Section 54)

5) Character as affecting damages ( Section 55)

39. Explain “May pressure” “Shall presume and conclusive proof may

presume.

Introduction:

These are inference naturally and logically drag from experience and

observation of human mind, action, habits etc, section 4 says when ever it is

proved by this act that the court may presume a fact it may either regard such

facts as proved unless and until it is disproved or it may call for proof of it.

The court may presume in the following instance:

1. If a men is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft, then it is

presumed her he is the thief or a person who has received the goods

knowing them to be stolen. It is purely a question of fact and not law.

If the accused says that he is not the thief or a person who had received the

goods knowing them to be stolen, he has to prove that he is not the thief or

receiver of stolen property.

By the continuity of facts, the court presumes that he is the thief and it presumes

him as thief till he disproves it.

2. The court may pressure that judicial and official acts have been regularly

performed. It may presume like that till it is disproved.

The word “May” in the definition shows that it is not obligatory on the part of

the court to presence such facts always. It is left to the discretion of the court to

accept the presumption or to reject it. But the judgement follow some

guidelines for taking a decision of rejection or acceptance. So these presumption

of fact are not at all binding on the judges.Section 86, 87, 88 and 90 refer to this

type of presumption namely presumption of fact

If a court “May presume” a fact it has a description to presume it as proved, or

to call for confirmatory evidence of it. In such a case the presumption is capable

of rebuttal and it is called presumption juris it de jure. In cases in which a court

shall presume a fact the presumption is not conclusive but rebuttable.

Shall Presume
Section 4 clause (2) Says whenever it is directed by the act that the court shall

presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.

The judges have no discretion here. The act itself directs that the court should

presume a fact. The instances of such fact are given by the act itself. But the

presumption of the judges can be disproved by the other party. In all criminal

trials, the presumption is that the accused is always innocent.

This is presumption directed by law and hence termed presumption of law. But

the presumption can be rebutted by the prosecution side, so it is termed as

rebuttable presumption.

The presumption of law are based, like presumption of fact, on the uniformity

of deduction which experience proves to be justifiable. They differ from

presumptions of fact because it is vested by the law with the quality of a rule,

which directs that the presumption must be drawn. They are not like natural

presumption, where the presumption may or may not be drawn

3) Conclusive proof:

When the act declares one fact to be the conclusive proof of another, the court

shall take this as conclusive proof and shall not take evidence to disprove it.

Here, the judges have no discretion, but they have to accept as if such

presumption is proved.
The best example is section 82 f IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a

child under 7 years of age. In this case, even though the child has committed an

offence, the court cannot punish it. It is a direction of law and it cannot be

rebutted, so it is an irrefutable presumption of law.

In the same way the court presumes a contract as void ab ignition ( from the

beginning ) if it is entered into with a minor.

40) Discuss the scope of cross examination and explain the questions lawful in

cross examination?

Introduction:

It is the examination of the witness by the opponent party. It is very important

to bring out the truth or actual facts. The ability of the advocate lies in cross

examination.

Scope of cross examination:

The subject of cross examination is one of the vital important in the conduct of

law cases because it has the power to shift the truth from false hood. The object

of the cross examination are to impeach the occurrence credibility, and general

value of the evidence, given in chief to shift the facts already acted by the

witness to detect and exposes discrepancies or to elicit suppressed facts which

support the case of cross examining party.

The scope of cross examination is two fold

To weaker the qualify or destroy the case of the opponent and to establish the

parties own case by means of hi opponents witness, cross examination is

directed to the credibility of the witness and the facts to which he has deposed

in chief including the cross examination version there of and the facts which the

witness had not deposal but to which the cross examine thinks he is able to

dispose

• Leading questions are allowed

• Question relating to character and conduct of the

witnesses are allowed

• It must be only on relevant facts

Questions lawful in Cross examination (Section 146)

1) Total his veracity.

2) To discover who he is said what is his position in life or

3) To shake his credit by injuring his character, although the answer to such

question might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose

or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.

41. Explain the circumstances to which judgment of the courts become

relevant?
(Section 40-44)

1. Res judicata

2. Principles of Autre fois Acquit

3. Principles of Auto fois convict

4. public nature

5. Relevancy in part

6. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment / in competency of court.

Section regarding the judgment of court of justice when relevant from section

40 to section 44

1) Section 40 - The existing judgment will be relevant even in a second suit

trial.

2) Section 41 - The certain judgments in probate matrimony admilarity and

insolvency jurisdiction are relevant.

3) Section 42 the effect of judgment order or decree in relevant, other than

those which are given in section 41

4) Section 43 – Judgment order decree are irrelevant, other than those

mentioned in section 40-42

 5) Section 44- The previous judgment may proved fraud collusion or

incompetency of a court then such judgment does not have the effect of

Resjudicata

42. Explain the scope of section 113A & 114 A under Indian Evidence Act?

Earlier Answer.

1. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women ( Section

113A)

2.Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape (

Section 114A)

43. Write a note on accomplice

Introduction:

(Section 133)

Section 133 reads An accomplice is a competent within against an accused

person and conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the

uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

An accomplice in a person who is a conscious and active participate of a crime.

At law an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is
assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and facts the same

criminal penalty.

A person does not become an accomplice merely by witnessing an act and taking

no steps to prevent.

An accomplice becomes an approver by getting pardon from the court and he

helps the prosecution in bringing out the facts of the case. This practice of

accomplice evidence helps the police to detect many crimes.

The term accomplice ( approver) is neither define nor used in the criminal

procedure code, but is usually applied to a person, suppose to be directly or

indirectly concerned into privy to an offence to whom a pardon is granted under

section 337 of the code with a view to securing his testimony against other

persons guilty of the offence.

BY

ANIL KUMAR K T

LLB COACH