Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) Test 1 — Questions & Solutions
Every question from this subject test with the correct answer and a detailed, source-backed solution. Free to read. Want the real exam feel — a timer, instant scoring, and a topic-wise weakness report? Take it as a test.
50
Questions
8
Topics
+ solutions
Every question
Take this as a timed mock test — instant score + subject-wise analytics. First mock free, then ₹999/year for unlimited.
A is accused of murdering B. The prosecution wishes to prove that, shortly before the murder, A procured poison similar to that administered to B. Under the BSA, 2023, this fact is relevant because it shows:
apreparation and conduct of the accused
bthe opinion of the accused
ca fact forming part of the same transaction
dthe occasion of the crime
Answer: A
Procuring poison before the death evidences preparation (and conduct previous to the fact), relevant under BSA s 6 [IEA s 8], which makes preparation and the conduct of an accused relevant.
Q2Relevancy of facts
Which of the following best states the law on res gestae (facts forming part of the same transaction) under the BSA, 2023?
aSuch facts are relevant only if they occurred at the same time and place as the fact in issue
bSuch facts are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places
cA statement is admissible as res gestae even if made long after the incident, if it relates to it
dOnly acts, never statements, can form part of the same transaction
Answer: B
Under BSA s 4 [IEA s 6], facts so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant whether occurring at the same or different times and places; a statement must be spontaneous and contemporaneous (Sukhar v State of UP).
Q3Relevancy of facts
On a charge that the accused intentionally ran down a woman cyclist with a car, the prosecution leads evidence of similar attacks by the accused on other women. This evidence is:
ainadmissible, as similar facts are always excluded
badmissible only to prove the accused's bad character
cadmissible to show the act was intentional and to rebut accident
dadmissible only after the accused has been convicted of those attacks
Answer: C
Where the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, a series of similar occurrences involving the same person is relevant under BSA s 13 [IEA s 14/15] (R v Mortimer); such evidence rebuts the defence of accident.
Q4Relevancy of facts
In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, what is the correct position regarding proof of motive?
aMotive is wholly irrelevant in all criminal cases
bMotive must always be proved or the prosecution fails
cMotive recedes into the background and becomes academic
dMotive assumes greater importance and constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances
Answer: D
In circumstantial-evidence cases proof of motive gains importance and itself forms a link in the chain (Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v State of Gujarat); motive is relevant under BSA s 6 [IEA s 8]. It only recedes where there is direct eyewitness evidence.
Q5Relevancy of facts
Under the 'last seen together' theory as a piece of circumstantial evidence, which statement is correct?
aThe theory applies strongly where the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of death is small
bConviction can be recorded merely because the accused was last seen with the deceased
cA fixed time gap of 24 hours is laid down for the theory to operate
dLast seen together is conclusive proof of guilt by itself
Answer: A
Last seen together (relevant as conduct/circumstance under BSA s 6 [IEA s 8]) operates where the time gap is so small that no one else could be the author of the crime; there is no fixed formula and it is not conclusive (Ashok v Maharashtra).
Q6Relevancy of facts
Which of the following correctly defines when a fact is said to be 'disproved' under the BSA, 2023?
aWhen it is neither proved nor disproved
bWhen the court, after considering the matters before it, believes it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act on the supposition that it does not exist
cWhen the court has any suspicion that it may not exist
dWhen the party bearing the burden of proof fails to lead any evidence
Answer: B
The definition of 'disproved' under BSA s 2(1) [IEA s 3] mirrors 'proved' in the negative, applying the prudent-man standard; a fact neither proved nor disproved is 'not proved' (Vijayee Singh v State of UP).
Q7Relevancy of facts
The accused is charged with knowingly delivering a counterfeit coin. To prove guilty knowledge, the prosecution may show that he possessed other counterfeit coins. The relevancy of this fact rests on the principle that:
apossession of any property is always relevant
bit forms part of the same transaction
cfacts showing knowledge are relevant where knowledge is in issue
dit is the occasion of the offence
Answer: C
Where knowledge is material, facts showing it (e.g., possession of other counterfeit coins) are relevant under BSA s 13 [IEA s 14], even if apparently collateral (Mohd. Inayatullah v State of Maharashtra principle).
Q8Relevancy of facts
Regarding identification of an accused, which of the following is the correct legal position?
aIdentification at a Test Identification Parade is substantive evidence
bThe report of the Magistrate holding the TIP is itself substantive evidence
cA TIP is mandatory in every criminal case and can be claimed as a right by the suspect
dSubstantive evidence of identity is the identification before the court; the TIP serves only for corroboration or contradiction
Answer: D
Identification at a TIP is not substantive evidence; the substantive evidence is the identification in court, the TIP being used only for corroboration/contradiction under BSA s 9/s 160/s 148 [IEA s 9/157/145] (Malkhan Singh v State of MP). A TIP is not mandatory.
Q9Relevancy of facts
A is accused of a crime. After receiving a letter warning him that an inquiry is being made for the criminal, A absconds. Under the BSA, 2023, what is relevant?
aBoth the fact of absconding and the contents of the warning letter
bOnly the act of absconding, never the contents of the letter
cNeither, as absconding is consistent with innocence
dOnly the contents of the letter, not the absconding
Answer: A
Both A's absconding (subsequent conduct) and the contents of the letter that influenced it are relevant under BSA s 6 [IEA s 8], as conduct that is influenced by a fact in issue, with statements that explain such conduct being admissible.
A sues B on a registered sale deed; B does not specifically deny executing it. Under the BSA, 2023, what does the plaintiff need to do to prove its execution?
aHe must still examine at least one attesting witness because a sale deed is required to be attested
bHe need not call any attesting witness, since a registered document (not being a will) need not be proved by an attesting witness unless its execution is specifically denied
cHe must produce all attesting witnesses or account for their absence
dHe must prove the handwriting of the Sub-Registrar
Answer: B
For a registered document other than a will, an attesting witness need not be called unless execution by the executant is specifically denied (BSA s.68 proviso) [old s.68 IEA], as in Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez v Joosa Mariyan Fernandez.
A will is propounded for probate. To prove its valid execution, the attesting witness examined must depose that:
aOnly the testator signed the will
bThe testator signed and at least the scribe was present
cThe testator signed (or affixed his mark) and each attesting witness signed in the presence of the testator
dThe will was registered, which dispenses with attestation evidence
Answer: C
A will needs two or more attesting witnesses and the propounder must examine one who proves both the testator's signature/mark and that each witness signed in the testator's presence (Baldev v Dy Director of Consolidation); the scribe's signature is not proof of attestation absent animo attestandi (SR Srinivasa v S Padmavathamma).
Which of the following is NOT secondary evidence of the contents of a document under the BSA, 2023?
aAn oral account of the contents given by a person who has himself seen the document
bA certified copy of the document
cA copy made from the original by a mechanical process ensuring accuracy
dA counterpart of the document as against a party who did execute that counterpart
Answer: D
A counterpart is secondary evidence only as against the parties who did NOT execute it; against the executant of the counterpart it is primary. The other three are recognised forms of secondary evidence (BSA s.58 [old s.63 IEA]).
In a dispute, a party tenders a mere photocopy of a deed without proving that the original is unavailable or that the copy is a true copy. The court should:
aRefuse it, because no secondary evidence exists without the original and a photocopy is not secondary evidence unless shown to be an accurate copy of the original
bAdmit it as secondary evidence automatically because a photocopy is listed as secondary evidence
cAdmit it as primary evidence
dAdmit it only if the original is more than 30 years old
Answer: A
A photocopy by itself is not secondary evidence; it must be authenticated by foundational evidence that it is a true copy of the original (Himatsingka Seide Ltd v Shambappa; Kaliya v Madhya Pradesh) [old s.63/65 IEA].
Secondary evidence of the existence, condition or contents of a document is admissible in all the following situations EXCEPT:
aWhen the original is in the possession of the adverse party who fails to produce it after due notice
bWhen the party offering it himself fraudulently destroyed the original and now seeks to prove its contents by a copy
cWhen the original is not easily movable
dWhen the original comprises numerous accounts not conveniently examinable in court and only the general result is to be proved
Answer: B
A party who himself fraudulently destroys or suppresses the document cannot benefit from his own wrong to lead secondary evidence (Sivasubramania v Zamindar); the other situations are statutory grounds for secondary evidence [old s.65 IEA].
Notice to produce is ordinarily a pre-condition to giving secondary evidence of a document in the adverse party's possession. In which case is such notice NOT required?
aWhen the document is a routine commercial invoice
bWhen the party offering secondary evidence has lost the certified copy
cWhen the document to be proved is itself a notice
dWhen the document is over 20 years old
Answer: C
Notice to produce is dispensed with where the document to be proved is itself a notice, or where the adverse party obtained the original by fraud/force, or already admitted its loss, etc. [old s.66 IEA].
Which statement about public and private documents under the BSA, 2023 is correct?
aPublic records kept in a State of private documents are themselves private documents
bAll documents kept by any person are public documents
cA registered private sale deed becomes a public document upon registration
dAll documents other than public documents are private documents, and public documents include records of the acts of public officers and of the sovereign authority
Answer: D
Public documents include acts/records of the sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals and public officers, and public records kept of private documents; all others are private documents (Gopaldas v Shri Thakurji) [old ss.74-75 IEA].
The terms of a contract have been reduced to writing in a single document. A party seeks to lead oral evidence of an additional oral term. Such oral evidence is:
aInadmissible to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the written terms as between the parties to the instrument, save under recognised exceptions
bAlways admissible to give the complete picture of the bargain
cAdmissible only if the witness is an attesting witness
dAdmissible because oral evidence always prevails over documentary evidence
Answer: A
Where terms are reduced to a document, no oral agreement may be admitted to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms as between parties or their representatives (Bai Hira Devi v Official Assignee of Bombay) [old s.91/92 IEA], subject to provisos like fraud, want of consideration etc.
Despite the bar on oral evidence varying a written instrument, oral evidence IS admissible to show that:
aThe agreed price in the deed should have been higher
bThe document, though executed, was a sham never intended to operate as an agreement at all
cA patent ambiguity in the document means something else
dAn additional inconsistent term was orally agreed
Answer: B
The bar applies only when a party relies on the document; it does not bar oral evidence that the transaction recorded was a sham never intended to be acted upon (Gangabai v Chhabubai) [old s.92 IEA].
Q19Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, thereby inducing B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards in fact becomes A's property, and A then sues to set aside the sale on the ground that he had no title when he sold. Under the BSA, 2023, what is the result?
aA succeeds, because a seller without title at the time of sale conveys nothing and the sale is void
bA succeeds only if B knew A had no title at the time of purchase
cA is not allowed to prove his want of title at the time of sale, and the sale stands
dThe sale is voidable at B's option but A may still recover the land
Answer: C
This is the statutory illustration to the rule of estoppel in Section 121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA]; having induced the belief and the purchase, A is estopped from denying his title and the after-acquired title 'feeds the estoppel'.
Q20Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Which one of the following is NOT an essential ingredient for invoking estoppel under Section 121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA]?
aA representation by a person, by declaration, act or omission, of an existing fact
bBelief in its truth by the other party and action on the faith of it altering his position to his detriment
cThat the person claiming estoppel was unaware of the true state of things
dThat the representation was a fraudulent and intentionally false statement made to the knowledge of the maker
Answer: D
Estoppel does not require that the misrepresentation be made fraudulently or even knowingly false; it is enough that it was intended to be, and was, acted upon (Gadigeppa v Balangowda; s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA]). Hence (c) is not essential.
Q21Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
On whom does the burden of proving the ingredients of estoppel lie, and what is the legal character the Supreme Court has finally attributed to the doctrine?
aOn the party claiming estoppel; it is now treated as a substantive rule of law / equitable doctrine, not merely a rule of evidence
bOn the party against whom estoppel is pleaded; it is a substantive rule of law
cOn the party claiming estoppel; it is merely a rule of evidence and never anything more
dOn the court suo motu; it is a rule of procedure
Answer: A
The burden of proving estoppel lies on the party who sets it up; though historically called a rule of evidence (Low v Bouverie), it is now viewed as an equitable doctrine and substantive rule of law (Express Newspapers v Union of India). Provision: s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q22Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A University's record indicated that a student had passed an examination, and on that footing he continued his studies for a further year. Later the University sought to deny that he had passed. In which situation will estoppel NOT operate against the University?
aWhere the student altered his position by pursuing further studies on the faith of the representation
bWhere the University realised its mistake immediately and informed the student so that he suffered no detriment
cWhere the representation was made through the University's authorised officer
dWhere the representation concerned the existing fact of having passed
Answer: B
In SA Manjunath v University of Bangalore the University corrected its error at once and the student suffered no detriment, so no estoppel arose; detriment/alteration of position is indispensable (s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA]). Contrast Registrar, University of Madras v Sundara Shetty.
Q23Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A father executes a sale deed of family property and his adult son attests the deed and raises no objection at the time of sale. The son later claims an interest in the land and challenges the sale. What is the correct position?
aThe son is free to claim, since mere attestation is not a representation
bThe son is estopped only if he received part of the sale consideration
cThe son is estopped by conduct from assailing the sale or claiming any interest
dEstoppel cannot bind the son because he was not a party to the deed
Answer: C
Where a sale deed is attested by a person who makes no objection, he is estopped by conduct from later assailing the sale or claiming an interest (Mahboob Sahab v Syed Ismail) — estoppel in pais under s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q24Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Regarding estoppel of a tenant under Section 122, BSA 2023 [old s.116, IEA], which statement is correct?
aThe tenant may freely deny the landlord's title at any time during the tenancy
bThe estoppel binds the tenant even after he has openly surrendered possession and the tenancy has ended
cThe estoppel operates against the landlord but not against the tenant
dDuring the continuance of the tenancy, the tenant is precluded from denying that the landlord had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to the immovable property
Answer: D
The acceptance of rent and of an estate raises a reciprocal estoppel: during the tenancy the tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title at its commencement (Tej Bhan Madan; Pal Singh v Sunder Singh). Provision: s.122, BSA 2023 [old s.116, IEA].
Q25Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A shipowner issues a 'clean' bill of lading stating that the goods were shipped in apparent good order and condition, and an endorsee takes the bill for value on the faith of that statement. The goods turn out to have been damaged at shipment. What is the effect?
aThe shipowner is estopped from denying, as against the endorsee for value, that the goods were in good order and condition at shipment
bNo estoppel arises because a bill of lading is a mere receipt and not a representation
cThe endorsee must independently prove the actual condition of the goods at shipment
dThe estoppel binds the endorsee, not the shipowner
Answer: A
A clean bill of lading is an affirmation of fact creating an estoppel between shipowner and endorsee for value (Ellerman & Bucknall SS Co v Sha Misrimal Bherajee), subject to the qualification that the defect was discernible on reasonable examination. This is estoppel by statement/conduct under s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q26Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
For estoppel by negligence to be pleaded successfully, which of the following combinations of conditions must be established?
aMere carelessness causing loss to the other party, nothing more
bA duty to use due care towards the party misled, breach of that duty in the transaction itself, and that the negligence was the proximate or real cause of the misleading result
cOnly that the negligent party owed a duty to the general public, irrespective of causation
dOnly that the negligence was the remote cause of the loss
Answer: B
Estoppel by negligence requires (i) a duty to use due care towards the party misled, (ii) negligence in the transaction itself, and (iii) that such negligence was the proximate/real cause of the result (New Marine Coal Co v Union of India; Canara Bank v Canara Sales Corpn). Falls under s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q27Admissions & confessions
In a prosecution for murder, the accused makes an oral statement to the investigating police officer admitting that he killed the deceased. Which of the following is the correct legal position regarding this statement?
aIt is fully admissible as an admission against the accused
bIt is admissible only if recorded in question-and-answer form
cNo part of it can be proved against the accused, except so much as leads to a discovery of fact and the formal portion identifying the accused as the maker
dIt is admissible if the police officer was not in uniform
Answer: C
Under BSA s 23(1) [old IEA s 25] no confession made to a police officer is provable against the accused; per Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar the taint attaches to the whole statement, save the part leading to discovery under BSA s 23(2) [old s 27] and the formal portion identifying the maker.
Q28Admissions & confessions
An accused in police custody states, 'I have hidden the knife in my field; I will show you,' and the knife is recovered from that field. How much of this information is provable in evidence?
aThe entire statement including the words 'I have hidden the knife'
bOnly 'I will show you'
cNothing, because the accused was in police custody
dOnly so much as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, i.e. the place from which the knife was recovered
Answer: D
Under BSA s 23(2) [old IEA s 27], as explained in Pulukuri Kotayya v Emperor, only the portion relating distinctly to the fact discovered (the location) is admissible; the confessional words 'I have hidden' are inadmissible.
Q29Admissions & confessions
A confession is made by an accused to a person in authority after that person threatens him with reference to the charge, giving him reasonable grounds to suppose he would thereby avoid an evil of a temporal nature. Which statement is correct?
aThe confession is irrelevant
bThe confession is relevant if it later turns out to be true
cThe confession is relevant if corroborated by recovery
dThe confession is relevant because it was not made to a police officer
Answer: A
Under BSA s 22 [old IEA s 24] a confession caused by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority, giving reasonable grounds to suppose temporal advantage or avoidance of evil regarding the charge, is irrelevant.
Q30Admissions & confessions
Which of the following correctly describes the relationship between admissions and confessions?
aEvery admission is a confession
bEvery confession is an admission, but every admission is not a confession
cAdmissions and confessions are mutually exclusive concepts
dA confession is a species of estoppel, not of admission
Answer: B
As held in Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar, all confessions are admissions and are therefore ordinarily relevant, but not all admissions amount to confessions; a confession is an admission of the offence by a person charged with it (BSA s 22 / Pakala Narayana Swami).
Q31Admissions & confessions
Regarding the evidentiary character of an admission against the maker, which statement is most accurate?
aAn admission is conclusive proof of the fact admitted
bAn admission is irrelevant unless made on oath
cAn admission is not conclusive proof but shifts the onus onto the maker and may operate as an estoppel
dAn admission can never be explained or shown to be erroneous
Answer: C
Under BSA s 21 [old IEA s 31], admissions are not conclusive proof; per Thiru John v Returning Officer and Sitaramacharya v Gururajacharya, an unequivocal admission shifts the onus to the maker and may operate as an estoppel until rebutted.
Q32Admissions & confessions
X and Y are tried jointly for the same offence. X makes a confession implicating both himself and Y to the same extent. Against Y, this confession:
aIs substantive evidence sufficient by itself to found a conviction of Y
bCannot be considered at all against Y
cIs admissible against Y only if X is acquitted
dMay be taken into consideration but cannot be the sole foundation of conviction; it can only lend assurance to other evidence
Answer: D
Under BSA s 24 [old IEA s 30], as explained in Haricharan Kurmi v State of Bihar and Kalpnath Rai, a co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence; it may only be used to lend assurance to other evidence and cannot by itself found a conviction.
Q33Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
During a trial, the prosecution's witness, after a graphic examination-in-chief, begins giving answers that destroy the prosecution case and shows by his manner that he is not desirous of telling the truth. The Public Prosecutor seeks leave to put cross-examination-style questions to him. Which of the following best states the legal position under the BSA, 2023?
aThe court may, in its discretion, permit the party calling the witness to cross-examine him; declaring him hostile does not wipe out his entire evidence, and the portion supporting the prosecution that survives close scrutiny may still be relied upon.
bThe court has no power to permit the party calling a witness to cross-examine him; only the adverse party may cross-examine.
cThe court may, in its discretion, permit the party who calls a witness to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, and on doing so his entire evidence is automatically wiped out.
dOnce a witness turns hostile his testimony must be wholly discarded and cannot form the basis of conviction even if corroborated.
Answer: A
Under BSA s.157 [old IEA s.154] the court may permit the party calling a witness to cross-examine him; a hostile witness is not necessarily false and his entire evidence is not wiped out — the credible part may be relied upon (Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883; Koli Lakhmanbhai v State of Gujarat).
Q34Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A is being tried for an offence. He is cross-examined and a question is put to him about a matter relevant only insofar as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character. He answers, denying the imputation. The cross-examining party then wishes to lead independent evidence to contradict that answer. Which is correct?
aIndependent evidence to contradict him is freely admissible because the question was put in cross-examination.
bNo evidence may be given to contradict him; but if he has answered falsely he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
cThe answer can be contradicted only with the court's prior written permission recorded in the order sheet.
dThe answer can be contradicted only if the witness is first declared hostile.
Answer: B
Under BSA s.153 [old IEA s.153], where a witness answers a question relevant only to shaking his credit by injuring his character, no evidence may be given to contradict him; but if false, he may be prosecuted for false evidence. Exceptions (e.g. previous conviction, impeaching impartiality) allow contradiction.
Q35Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
In an examination-in-chief, counsel for the party calling the witness wishes to ask a leading question. The adverse party objects. In which of the following situations may the court NOT properly permit the leading question over objection?
aWhere the question relates to matters which are merely introductory.
bWhere the question relates to matters which are undisputed.
cWhere the question relates to the very fact in controversy that is yet to be established and is disputed.
dWhere the question relates to matters which, in the court's opinion, have already been sufficiently proved.
Answer: C
Under BSA s.146 [old IEA s.142], leading questions must not be asked in examination-in-chief if objected to, except as to matters introductory, undisputed, or already sufficiently proved. A disputed fact in controversy cannot be led.
Q36Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
It is intended to contradict a witness by a previous statement made by him in writing and relevant to the matters in question. Regarding the procedure under the BSA, 2023, which statement is correct?
aThe writing must be shown to the witness before any question can be asked about it.
bThe previous writing can be used to contradict him without ever drawing his attention to any part of it.
cA previous statement can never be used to contradict a witness unless it was made on oath.
dThe witness may be cross-examined as to the previous writing without it being shown to him; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing is proved, be called to the parts to be used to contradict him.
Answer: D
Under BSA s.148 [old IEA s.145], a witness may be cross-examined on a previous writing without it being shown, but to contradict him by it, his attention must first be drawn to the relevant parts before the writing is proved (Binay Kumar Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 322).
Q37Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
During re-examination, the party who originally called the witness, with the permission of the court, introduces a new matter not touched in cross-examination. The opposing counsel objects that re-examination is over and no further questioning is allowed. What is the correct position?
aWhere new matter is introduced in re-examination by the court's permission, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
bThe new matter is inadmissible because re-examination must be strictly confined to explaining ambiguities arising in cross-examination.
cNo further cross-examination is permissible once re-examination has begun; the objection must be upheld.
dThe new matter can be introduced but only the judge, not the parties, may then question on it.
Answer: A
Under BSA s.143 [old IEA s.138], where new matter is introduced in re-examination by leave of court, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon those matters (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563).
Q38Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
H and W were married. During the marriage H made a confidential oral communication to W. The couple later divorced. After the divorce, in a suit between H and a third party, W is asked to disclose that communication. Which is correct regarding marital communication privilege under the BSA, 2023?
aW can never disclose the communication, because the privilege is permanent and survives even after divorce.
bThe bar attaches at the time the communication was made and is judged by the status then; a communication made during marriage remains protected, but disclosure is permitted only with the maker's (or his representative's) consent or in suits between the spouses / prosecutions for crimes against one another.
cW may disclose it because the privilege attaches at the time the communication was made and divorce removes all protection retrospectively.
dThe privilege protects the communication itself, so even a third party who overheard it is barred from proving it.
Answer: B
Under BSA s.128 [old IEA s.122], the bar attaches when the communication is made during marriage; it can be disclosed only with consent or in spousal suits/prosecutions. It binds the spouse personally, not third parties who overheard it (MC Verghese v TJ Ponnan AIR 1970 SC 1876; Appu v State AIR 1971 Mad 194).
Q39BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the definition of "document" was expanded in comparison with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Which of the following best states the change?
a"Document" still means only matter expressed on a physical substance and electronic records are dealt with as a wholly separate category outside the definition
b"Document" includes electronic records only when they are printed out on paper
c"Document" now expressly includes electronic and digital records, and the illustrations cover items such as e-mails, server logs, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on a device
d"Document" excludes maps, plans and caricatures, which are now treated as electronic records
Answer: C
Section 2(1)(d) BSA [old s.3 IEA] defines 'document' to expressly include electronic and digital records, with illustrations covering e-mails, server logs, locational data and voice messages — a key new feature of the 2023 code.
Q40BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
A litigant produces the original hard disk of a computer in court along with the data stored on it. Under the BSA, 2023, how is the data on that hard disk best classified for proof of its contents?
aIt is always secondary evidence because computer data is a copy by nature
bIt is inadmissible unless first converted into a paper printout
cIt is hearsay and can never be primary evidence
dIt is primary evidence, since the BSA expressly treats an electronic or digital record stored in any device, of which the device is part, as primary evidence
Answer: D
Section 57 BSA [old s.62 IEA] with its Explanations treats electronic/digital records stored in a device as primary evidence — a new feature placing such records on par with original documents.
Q41BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
An electronic record is created and stored simultaneously in several files (multiple identical copies generated by one process). Under the Explanations to the primary-evidence provision of the BSA, 2023, what is the status of each such file?
aWhere an electronic record is stored in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence
bOnly the first-created file is primary evidence; the rest are secondary
cNone is primary evidence because they are duplicates
dEach file is secondary evidence requiring a certificate
Answer: A
An Explanation to s.57 BSA provides that where an electronic record is stored in multiple files, each file is primary evidence — a clarification absent from the old IEA.
Q42BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
A video is recorded on a phone and then transmitted and stored on several other devices simultaneously. Under the Explanations to the primary-evidence section of the BSA, 2023, the copies so created and stored are:
aSecondary evidence requiring proof of loss of the phone
bEach treated as primary evidence
cInadmissible without the maker's affidavit
dPrimary only if the phone is also produced
Answer: B
An Explanation to s.57 BSA states that where an electronic record is produced from proper custody by storage in multiple devices created simultaneously, each is primary evidence — broadening the original-document concept.
Q43Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
A is grievously assaulted and, expecting to die, makes a statement before a Magistrate naming his attackers. He recovers fully and is alive at trial. As to A's statement, which is the correct position?
aIt is admissible as a dying declaration because it was made in expectation of death
bIt is wholly inadmissible and cannot be used for any purpose
cIt is not a dying declaration, but is admissible as a former statement to corroborate A's testimony in court
dIt is admissible only as substantive evidence of guilt without A being examined
Answer: C
Where the maker does not die, the statement is not a dying declaration; it survives only as a former statement usable to corroborate his court testimony (State of U.P. v Ramesh Prasad Misra; Maqsoodan v State of U.P.). Relevant under S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q44Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Regarding the requirement that the declarant must have been under expectation of imminent death for the statement to be a valid dying declaration in India, the correct statement is:
aExpectation of death is an essential precondition; absent it, the statement is inadmissible
bExpectation of death is required only in suicide cases, not homicide cases
cExpectation of death is required only where the statement is oral
dA dying declaration is relevant whether or not the maker was under expectation of death at the time, though it affects weight
Answer: D
Unlike the English rule, under S26 BSA [old S32 IEA] the declaration is relevant irrespective of expectation of death (Pakala Narayana Swamy); expectation only enhances the weight attached (Laxman v State of Maharashtra; R v Woodcock).
Q45Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Which of the following best states the Indian position on whether a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction?
aIf found reliable and trustworthy, it may form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration
bIt always requires corroboration before conviction can rest on it
cIt can never be the sole basis of conviction in a capital case
dIt can be the sole basis only if recorded by a Magistrate in question-answer form
Answer: A
A reliable dying declaration may by itself sustain a conviction without corroboration, though corroboration may sometimes be required to add weight (Pathan Kareemulla v State of A.P.; Laxman v State of Maharashtra). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q46Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
A bedridden victim, unable to speak, answers the Magistrate's questions only by nods and gestures, naming her assailant. On the evidentiary value of such a declaration, the correct view is:
aIt is wholly inadmissible because it is not a 'statement' within the meaning of the section
bIt has evidentiary value, depending on factors such as who recorded it, the nature of the questions, and how clear the gestures were
cIt is admissible only if subsequently reduced to writing and signed by the victim
dIt is admissible only if a doctor independently certifies the meaning of each gesture
Answer: B
A declaration by nods and gestures has evidentiary value, its extent depending on the recorder's qualifications, the simplicity of the questions and the clarity of the gestures (Jayaraj v State of Tamil Nadu). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q47Expert & opinion evidence, character
A witness in a criminal trial states in court, "In my opinion the accused must be the killer, because no one else had a motive." The trial judge proposes to act on this statement as substantive evidence of guilt. Which principle, codified in the BSA, 2023, is most directly violated?
aHearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls within a statutory exception
bSecondary evidence of a document is inadmissible unless the original is unavailable
cOpinions of ordinary third persons are as a general rule irrelevant; witnesses must state facts they themselves perceive, and the drawing of inferences is a judicial function for the court
dConfessions to the police are inadmissible against the maker
Answer: C
The opinions or beliefs of third persons are generally irrelevant; a witness must depose to facts perceived, and drawing inferences is the court's judicial function (Babuli v State of Orissa; Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay). Exceptions are carved out by BSA ss 39-50 [old IEA ss 45-51].
Q48Expert & opinion evidence, character
The court has to form an opinion on a point of foreign law and as to the identity of certain handwriting. Whose opinion is made relevant for these matters under the BSA, 2023 provision dealing with expert opinion?
aAny literate witness who has read about the subject
bOnly a witness who personally saw the events in dispute
cOnly an officer appointed by the Central Government
dPersons especially skilled in such matters, who are called experts
Answer: D
Under BSA s 39 [old IEA s 45], when the court must form an opinion on foreign law, science, art, or the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions of persons especially skilled in those matters (experts) are relevant facts (Asiatic Steam Navigation Co v Arabinda Chakravarti).
Q49Expert & opinion evidence, character
A handwriting expert testifies that a disputed signature is forged but gives no reasons, data, or material in support of his conclusion. How should the court treat this evidence?
aAn expert opinion unsupported by reasons will not be relied upon, as the credibility of an expert depends on the reasons and the data forming the basis of the conclusion
bIt must be accepted because experts are presumed reliable
cIt is conclusive proof of forgery once the witness is qualified
dIt is inadmissible and cannot even be placed on record
Answer: A
The credibility of an expert depends on the reasons stated and the data and material furnished; an expert opinion not supported by any reasons will not be relied upon (Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital; Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v State of WB). Expert evidence is advisory, not conclusive.
Q50Expert & opinion evidence, character
In a murder trial, the eyewitness account is direct and consistent, but the medical (post-mortem) opinion is in total conflict with it. Which is the correct legal position on the relative weight of the two?
aMedical opinion always prevails over eyewitness testimony
bWhere medical evidence merely conflicts but is not totally inconsistent, the direct eyewitness evidence is preferred; only where there is total inconsistency does expert evidence get primacy
cThe two cancel each other and an acquittal must follow
dThe court must order a fresh post-mortem before deciding
Answer: B
Oral evidence of an eyewitness gets primacy as medical evidence is basically opinionative; but if there is total inconsistency, the expert evidence gets primacy (Kapildeo Mandal v State of Bihar; Mohan Singh v State of MP). Relevant under BSA s 39 [old IEA s 45].
Practiced enough reading? Attempt Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) mocks under real exam conditions and track your weak subjects.
Law Mock is an independent preparation resource and is not affiliated with any High Court, Public Service Commission, or government body. All exam information is sourced from official notifications and is updated periodically.
