Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) Test 2 — 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.
Which statement about the relevance of a statement under the head of 'conduct' is correct?
aStatements are not 'conduct' unless they accompany and explain acts other than statements
bAll statements are relevant as conduct
cStatements are never relevant as conduct under any circumstance
dOnly written statements qualify as conduct
Answer: A
The Explanation to BSA s 6 [IEA s 8] provides that the word 'conduct' does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements (Bhagwandas Keshwani v State of Rajasthan).
Q2Relevancy of facts
Facts which are 'the occasion, cause or effect' of facts in issue are relevant. Which illustration correctly falls under this head?
aThe accused procuring poison before the death of the deceased
bMarks on the ground produced by a struggle near the place where a murder was committed
cThe accused absconding after the crime
dThe accused possessing other stolen articles
Answer: B
Struggle marks near the murder scene are 'effects' of and the state of things under which the fact in issue happened, relevant under BSA s 5 [IEA s 7], which covers occasion, cause, effect, opportunity and state of things.
Q3Relevancy of facts
On the question whether a given document is the will of A, the state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged will is relevant. The relevant head is:
afacts forming part of the same transaction
bfacts showing state of mind
cfacts necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact
dfacts showing the occasion or cause
Answer: C
The state of A's property and family is an introductory/explanatory fact relevant under BSA s 11 [IEA s 9], which makes relevant facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact.
Q4Relevancy of facts
A is tried for the murder of B by poison. To rebut the prosecution case, A proves that at the time of the alleged poisoning he was in another city. Such proof of alibi operates as evidence of:
aa fact showing motive
ba fact forming part of the same transaction
cthe conduct of the accused after the crime
dnegation of opportunity, relevant as the absence of a fact constituting the state of things
Answer: D
Proof of alibi is an example of negation of opportunity for the commission of the crime, relevant under BSA s 5 [IEA s 7] which makes relevant facts affording an opportunity (and, conversely, facts negating it).
Q5Relevancy of facts
On a charge of murder, the accused pleads that by reason of unsoundness of mind he did not know the nature of his act. In this situation, the abnormal state of mind (insanity) is:
aitself a fact in issue
bmerely a relevant fact bearing on knowledge
cinadmissible as it concerns the accused's own mind
drelevant only as similar-fact evidence
Answer: A
Where insanity is pleaded so that the accused did not know the nature of the act, the abnormal state of mind becomes a fact in issue itself (Ram Sundar Saha v Kali Narain Sen); it is usually proved by expert evidence.
Q6Relevancy of facts
Which of the following is the correct statement of the general rule on similar facts and its exception under the BSA, 2023?
aSimilar facts are always admissible to prove the main fact and the identity of its author
bSimilar facts are generally inadmissible, but become relevant when a state of mind such as intention or knowledge is in issue or to rebut accident
cSimilar facts are admissible only in civil cases
dSimilar facts are never admissible under any exception
Answer: B
Similar facts not part of the same transaction are generally excluded, but BSA s 13 [IEA s 14/15] makes them relevant where intention, knowledge or other state of mind is in issue, or where the act forms part of a series of similar occurrences, to rebut accident (Noor Mohamed v The King).
Q7Relevancy of facts
A is accused of murdering B by poison. The prosecution seeks to prove that shortly before B's death, A purchased poison of the same kind administered to B. Under the BSA, 2023, this fact is most directly relevant as showing:
aa fact forming part of the same transaction (res gestae)
bthe occasion or cause of the fact in issue
cpreparation by A, relevant to the fact in issue
dthe opinion of an expert
Answer: C
Procuring poison before the death is preparation and is relevant under BSA s 6 [old s 8 IEA], which makes preparation for any fact in issue a relevant fact; the book treats A procuring similar poison before B's death as relevant conduct/preparation.
Q8Relevancy of facts
Under the BSA, 2023, a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the court:
abelieves it to exist beyond all possible doubt in every case
bis shown a prima facie case by the party asserting it
cfinds conclusive documentary proof of its existence
deither believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances, to act upon the supposition that it exists
Answer: D
BSA s 2(1) definition of 'proved' [old s 3 IEA] adopts the prudent-man standard; absolute certainty is not required (Vijayee Singh v State of UP). Two states of mind suffice: belief, or such high probability that a prudent man would act on it.
Q9Relevancy of facts
For a statement to be admissible as part of the res gestae forming part of the same transaction, the settled requirement under the BSA is that the statement must be:
aspontaneous and contemporaneous with the fact in issue, without any time interval enabling fabrication
bmade after sufficient time has passed for the maker to reflect calmly
creduced to writing and signed by the maker
dmade only by the person who is the victim of the offence
Answer: A
Under BSA s 4 [old s 6 IEA], a statement is res gestae only if spontaneous and contemporaneous, without any interval enabling fabrication (Om Singh v State of Rajasthan; S Pratap Singh v State of Punjab). The declaration and act may even be by different persons.
A sale deed acknowledges receipt of the full consideration. The vendor wishes to prove orally that part of the price was actually never received. Under the BSA, 2023:
aHe cannot, as oral evidence may never contradict a recital in a deed
bHe may, because the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration is not a term of the deed and oral evidence is permissible to show the amount was not received
cHe may, and the purchaser may then prove orally that the price was actually less than stated
dHe may only if the deed is unregistered
Answer: B
Acknowledgment of receipt of consideration is not a 'term' of the sale deed, so oral evidence may show the amount was not received; but this does not let the other party prove an oral agreement that the price was less than recited (Mohammad Taki Khan v Jang Singh) [old s.92 IEA].
Where a deed says 'my house in Calcutta', but the executant had no house in Calcutta and instead had a house in Howrah of which the buyer had taken possession, evidence of these facts is:
aInadmissible, being a patent ambiguity that cannot be explained
bInadmissible, because the language is plain and applies accurately to existing facts
cAdmissible, because the language is plain in itself but has no meaning in relation to existing facts (latent ambiguity)
dAdmissible only if the deed is unregistered
Answer: C
When the language is plain but has no meaning in relation to existing facts, evidence may be given to show the peculiar sense intended; this is the case of latent ambiguity (Baleshwar Prasad Choudhary v Lal Bahadur Prasad Choudhary) [old s.95/97 IEA].
Where, on the face of a document, the language is itself ambiguous or defective (a patent ambiguity), the rule under the BSA, 2023 is that:
aOral evidence may be given to remove the patent ambiguity
bThe document is void and inadmissible
cOnly the executant may explain it orally
dEvidence may not be given of facts to show its meaning or supply its defects
Answer: D
A patent ambiguity cannot be explained by oral evidence; where the condition is vague on a fair construction, no evidence is admitted to remove the ambiguity (Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills) [old s.93 IEA].
Regarding a person's age, which entry has the greatest evidentiary value as proof, under the principles in the BSA, 2023?
aAn entry of date of birth in the birth register maintained under statutory duty, given preference even over medical evidence
bA date of birth mentioned in a horoscope
cA school admission register entry where no material on which the age was recorded is shown
dA death certificate issued by a respectable local resident
Answer: A
A birth register entry is a valuable piece of evidence preferred over medical evidence (State of Gujarat v Inayathusen). A horoscope is unreliable (Hawaldar Singh), a school entry has little value absent the basis (Birad Mal Singhvi), and a private death certificate is inadmissible (Raj Rani) [old ss.35/74 IEA].
Under the rule on ancient documents in the BSA, 2023, a document 30 years old produced from proper custody:
aMust conclusively be presumed genuine, and the court is bound to do so
bMay be presumed by the court to be genuine as to signature, handwriting, execution and attestation, but the court is not bound to do so
cCannot be admitted unless an attesting witness is called
dIs presumed forged unless proved otherwise
Answer: B
A document 30 years old from proper custody may be presumed genuine as to signature, handwriting, execution and attestation, but the court is not bound to make the presumption (State of Bihar v Radha Krishna Singh; Pavitri Devi v Darbari Singh) [old s.90 IEA].
All facts may be proved by oral evidence under the BSA, 2023, EXCEPT:
aA person's mental condition
bFacts forming part of the same transaction
cThe contents of documents or electronic records
dThe cause or effect of a fact in issue
Answer: C
All facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence; the contents must be proved by primary or admissible secondary evidence (P Ram Reddy v Land Acquisition Officer) [old s.59 IEA].
A witness in a murder trial deposes that the deceased had told him, a week before the killing, that the accused had threatened him. On the question of whether the threat was actually made, this part of the witness's testimony is:
aAdmissible, because oral evidence may always include what a witness was told by others
bAdmissible as primary evidence of the threat
cAdmissible only if reduced to writing
dInadmissible as oral evidence of the fact of the threat, because oral evidence must be direct and the witness did not himself hear the threat
Answer: D
Under s 55 BSA, 2023 [s 60 IEA] oral evidence must in all cases be direct; a witness can only speak to a fact he heard/saw/perceived himself, so hearsay of the threat is inadmissible to prove the threat was made.
The terms of a written sale deed are sought to be proved. Which of the following is NOT, by itself, secondary evidence of the contents of that document?
aA photocopy not shown to be an accurate copy of the original
bA certified copy of the registered deed
cA copy made from the original by a photostat (mechanical) process
dAn oral account of the contents given by a person who has himself seen the original
Answer: A
Under s 58 BSA, 2023 [s 63 IEA], a photocopy becomes secondary evidence only when shown to be an accurate copy of the original; a bare photocopy unauthenticated by foundational evidence is not secondary evidence (Himatsngka Seide Ltd; Kaliya v M.P.).
A litigant who himself fraudulently destroyed the original of a document later seeks to prove its contents by secondary evidence. The correct legal position is that he:
aMay freely lead secondary evidence once loss of the original is proved
bCannot be permitted to prove it by secondary evidence, as he cannot benefit from his own wrong
cMay lead secondary evidence only with the court's special leave
dMay lead secondary evidence only if the opposite party consents
Answer: B
Secondary evidence of a lost/destroyed document is allowed under s 60 BSA, 2023 [s 65 IEA] only on proof of loss; but a party who fraudulently destroyed or suppressed the original cannot benefit from his own wrong (Sivasubramania v Zamindar).
Q19Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Which of the following correctly states the law on estoppel against a statute?
aA party may by estoppel validate a transaction which the legislature has, on grounds of public policy, declared invalid
bEstoppel against a statute is always available where both parties consented to act contrary to the statute
cThere is no estoppel against a statute; the doctrine cannot be invoked to render valid what the law has made invalid, nor to oust a statutory jurisdiction
dEstoppel against a statute applies only in criminal matters
Answer: C
There can be no estoppel against a statute or the Constitution; the doctrine cannot validate a transaction the legislature has declared invalid (Vij Resins v State of J&K; Yamunabai v Anantrao). General principle of estoppel, s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q20Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
The Government, knowing or intending that its promise would be acted upon, makes a representation on which the promisee acts and alters his position to his detriment, even though there is no formal contract as required by the Constitution. Which is correct?
aThe Government is never bound, since estoppel can never operate against the State
bThe promise is enforceable only if supported by consideration
cThe promise binds the Government only in the exercise of its sovereign and legislative functions
dThe Government is bound by promissory estoppel, and the promise is enforceable notwithstanding absence of consideration or a formal contract
Answer: D
Per Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v State of UP, where the Government makes a promise intending it to be acted on and the promisee alters his position, promissory estoppel binds the Government despite no consideration or formal contract; but it does not apply against legislative/sovereign functions or against statute.
Q21Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A litigant, having taken a benefit under a court order (e.g. payment of costs) by treating it as valid, later seeks to have the same order set aside as invalid. The principle that bars him is best described as:
aThe rule against approbation and reprobation (estoppel by election)
bRes judicata
cIssue estoppel
dEstoppel by deed
Answer: A
A party who has taken advantage under an order cannot afterwards call it invalid; this is the rule that one may not approbate and reprobate, a species of estoppel by election (Nagubai Ammal v B Shama Rao; Bhau Ram v Baijnath Singh), recognised under s.121, BSA 2023 [old s.115, IEA].
Q22Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
In a criminal trial, once an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court and a finding reached in favour of the accused, the rule of 'issue estoppel' operates so as to:
aBar the trial and conviction of the accused for any distinct offence arising from the same facts
bPreclude the prosecution from leading evidence to disturb that finding of fact in a subsequent trial, even for a different offence
cOperate exactly like autrefois acquit, barring any further prosecution
dAllow the prosecution to re-lead evidence already held insufficient at the earlier trial
Answer: B
Issue estoppel does not bar trial for a distinct offence (unlike autrefois acquit); it only precludes reception of evidence to upset a finding of fact already recorded in the accused's favour (Masud Khan v State of UP; State of AP v Kokkilagada Meeraiah).
Q23Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A fact is said to be 'proved' under the BSA, 2023 when, after considering the matters before it, the court:
aIs satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out
bEntertains a suspicion, however strong, that it exists
cEither believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, in the circumstances, to act upon the supposition that it exists
dFinds it neither proved nor disproved
Answer: C
This is the statutory definition of 'proved' in s.2(1), BSA 2023 [old s.3, IEA] — belief in existence, or probability such that a prudent man would act on it. Suspicion is no substitute for proof (Varkey Joseph v State of Kerala); a 'prima facie case' is not the same as proof.
Q24Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
When the Act provides that the court 'may presume' a fact, the correct legal consequence is that the court:
aMust regard the fact as conclusively proved and allow no evidence to disprove it
bIs bound to presume the fact unless and until it is disproved
cCannot take the fact into account at all without independent proof
dMay either regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it
Answer: D
A 'may presume' (presumption of fact) leaves it to the court's discretion either to treat the fact as proved unless disproved or to call for proof; this rests on the common course of natural events and human conduct (s.2(1)/s.119, BSA 2023 [old ss.3 & 114, IEA]). It is rebuttable and discretionary, unlike a conclusive presumption.
Q25Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
In a case resting on the 'last seen together' circumstance, what is the correct position as to proof and burden?
aIt is not conclusive proof; conviction cannot rest merely on it, though where the time-gap is very small the accused, having special knowledge, carries a burden to explain
bProof that the accused was last seen with the deceased is by itself conclusive proof of guilt
cThe 'last seen' theory shifts the entire burden of proving innocence onto the accused in every case
dThe 'last seen' circumstance is wholly irrelevant in criminal trials
Answer: A
'Last seen together' is a piece of circumstantial evidence, not conclusive proof; conviction cannot rest on it alone, but where the gap between last sighting and death is small, the accused has special knowledge and a corresponding burden to explain (Ashok v Maharashtra; Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar) — burden as to facts especially within knowledge, s.109, BSA 2023 [old s.106, IEA].
Q26Burden 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 later in fact becomes A's property, and A now seeks to set aside the sale by proving that he had no title at the time of sale. Under the estoppel provision of the BSA, 2023, what is the legal position?
aA may set aside the sale because the doctrine of feeding the grant overrides estoppel
bA is not allowed to prove his want of title at the time of the sale to defeat the transaction
cA may set aside the sale only if B had means of knowledge of the defect
dEstoppel does not apply because the representation related to title, a matter of law
Answer: B
This is the statutory illustration to the estoppel section (BSA, 2023 s.121 [old IEA s.115]): having induced B to buy by a false representation of ownership, A is precluded from proving his want of title to upset the sale.
Q27Admissions & confessions
For a confession of one accused to be taken into consideration against a co-accused under BSA s 24 [old IEA s 30], which condition is NOT required?
aThere must be an inculpatory confession, not a merely exculpatory admission
bThe maker and the co-accused must be tried jointly for the same offence
cThe confession must have led to the recovery of a material object
dThe confession must affect both the maker and the co-accused
Answer: C
Per Kalpnath Rai v State, the conditions are an inculpatory confession, a joint trial for the same offence, and that it affects both maker and co-accused; recovery of an object is not a precondition under BSA s 24 [old s 30].
Q28Admissions & confessions
A person, not yet arrested and not in police custody, makes a statement to a police officer that amounts to a confession of an offence. This confession is:
aAdmissible because he was neither an accused nor in custody at the time
bAdmissible because the bar applies only to persons in formal custody
cAdmissible because it is not a confession in custody
dInadmissible against him, since it is hit by the bar on confessions to a police officer
Answer: D
Under BSA s 23(1) [old IEA s 25], the maker need not be an accused or in custody at the time; as noted in Devi Ram Patt Ram v State, the bar on confessions to a police officer applies regardless.
Q29Admissions & confessions
Which of the following statements made to a police officer is admissible against the maker?
aA statement that does not amount to a confession but is merely an admission
bA confession of the offence charged
cA confession of a co-accused recorded at the police station
dA confession made while in police custody, not in a Magistrate's presence
Answer: A
While confessions to a police officer are barred (BSA s 23 [old s 25/26]), a statement to a police officer that does not amount to a confession but is only an admission may be proved against the maker, as held in Pritam Hariomai v R.
Q30Admissions & confessions
Regarding 'custody' for the bar on confessions made while in police custody (BSA s 23(1) [old IEA s 26]), which is correct?
aCustody commences only on formal arrest
bCustody commences from the moment the accused's movements are restricted and he is kept under some form of police surveillance
cCustody requires that the accused be lodged in a lock-up
dCustody and arrest are identical concepts
Answer: B
Per Paramhansa Jadab v State and Dharam Deo Yadav, 'custody' does not commence only on formal arrest; it includes any kind of surveillance, restriction or restraint by police once movements are restricted.
Q31Admissions & confessions
A confession is made after an inducement proceeding from a person in authority, but the court finds that the impression caused by the inducement had been fully removed before the confession was made. The confession is:
aAlways irrelevant once any inducement existed
bRelevant only if made before a Magistrate
cRelevant
dRelevant only against a co-accused
Answer: C
Under the proviso to BSA s 22 [old IEA s 28], where the impression caused by the inducement, threat or promise is, in the court's opinion, fully removed, a subsequent confession is relevant.
Q32Admissions & confessions
An accused makes a confession that is otherwise relevant. It does NOT become irrelevant merely because it was made:
aAs a result of a threat by a person in authority regarding the charge
bTo a police officer during investigation
cWhile in police custody and not before a Magistrate
dUnder a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised to obtain it, or when he was drunk
Answer: D
Under the explanation to BSA s 22 [old IEA s 29], an otherwise relevant confession is not rendered irrelevant merely by a promise of secrecy, deception, intoxication, lack of warning, or its being made in answer to questions.
Q33Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A witness, while under examination, wishes to refer to a writing to refresh his memory. Which of the following is NOT a permissible basis for refreshing memory under the BSA, 2023?
aAny document prepared by the witness several years later expressly for the purpose of giving evidence at the trial.
bA writing made by the witness himself at the time of the transaction.
cA writing made by the witness so soon after the transaction that the court considers the transaction was then fresh in his memory.
dA writing made by another person and read by the witness within the relevant time, where, when he read it, he knew it to be correct.
Answer: A
Under BSA s.162 [old IEA s.159], a witness may refresh memory from a writing made by him at the time, or soon after while the matter was fresh, or one made by another and read by him when he knew it correct. A document prepared long afterwards expressly for trial does not qualify.
Q34Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A party who tenders a prosecution witness only for cross-examination, without conducting any examination-in-chief, in a criminal trial. What is the legal effect?
aIt is a valid and efficient method of leading evidence and the witness's testimony is fully proved.
bTendering a witness only for cross-examination amounts to giving up the witness, as the prosecution chooses not to examine him in chief; tendering without examination-in-chief is not warranted by law and amounts to failure to examine the witness.
cThe witness is treated as a hostile witness automatically.
dThe court must record the examination-in-chief itself before the witness can be cross-examined.
Answer: B
Tendering a witness merely for cross-examination amounts to giving up the witness and is not warranted by law — it amounts to a failure to examine him at trial (Sukhwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1601; State of UP v Jaggo AIR 1971 SC 1586).
Q35Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
Regarding the competency of witnesses under the BSA, 2023, which of the following persons would be INCOMPETENT to testify?
aA lunatic who, despite his lunacy, is able to understand the questions put to him and give rational answers.
bA dumb witness who gives intelligible evidence by writing or signs in open court.
cA person of extreme old age who is prevented by that cause from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.
dAn accomplice giving evidence against the accused.
Answer: C
Under BSA s.124 [old IEA s.118], all persons are competent unless incapable of understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender years, extreme old age, disease, etc. A lunatic able to understand is competent; a dumb witness may testify by signs/writing; an accomplice is competent (s.138).
Q36Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
An accomplice deposes against the accused. Which statement most accurately reflects the law on conviction based on accomplice testimony under the BSA, 2023?
aAn accomplice is an incompetent witness and his testimony must be excluded altogether.
bA conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is illegal per se and must be set aside.
cAccomplice evidence requires corroboration only where the accomplice is also an approver, and not otherwise.
dAn accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; yet, as a rule of prudence, courts insist on independent corroboration in material particulars.
Answer: D
Under BSA s.138 read with the presumption (old IEA s.133 with illustration (b) to s.114), an accomplice is competent and a conviction is not illegal though uncorroborated; but prudence requires independent corroboration in material particulars (Haroon Haji Abdulla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 832).
Q37Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
In a cross-examination, counsel proposes to ask a question that is indecent or scandalous but which has some bearing on the questions before the court, though it does not relate to a fact in issue or to a matter necessary to determine whether a fact in issue existed. What is the court's power?
aThe court may forbid such indecent or scandalous questions, even though they may have some bearing, unless they relate to facts in issue or to matters necessary to determine whether facts in issue existed.
bThe court must permit the question because it has some bearing on the case.
cThe court can never forbid a question once it is asked in cross-examination.
dThe court may forbid the question only if counsel admits it is irrelevant.
Answer: A
Under BSA s.154 [old IEA s.151], the court may forbid indecent or scandalous questions unless they relate to facts in issue or matters necessary to determine whether facts in issue existed; it may also forbid questions intended to insult or annoy (s.155 / old s.152).
Q38Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A communication made by a client to his advocate in the course and for the purpose of professional employment. In which of the following circumstances is the advocate NOT barred from disclosing it under the BSA, 2023?
aWhere the client merely appears as a witness in the suit at his own instance, without questioning the advocate.
bWhere the communication was made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, or relates to a fact observed by the advocate in the course of employment showing a crime or fraud committed since the commencement of his employment.
cWhere the advocate wishes to disclose advice he gave in the ordinary course of employment, without the client's consent.
dWhere the client has merely paid the advocate's fees.
Answer: B
Under BSA s.132 [old IEA s.126], the professional privilege does not apply to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, or to facts observed by the advocate showing a crime/fraud committed since employment commenced. A party merely giving evidence is not deemed to consent to disclosure (s.133 / old s.129).
Q39BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Which provision of the BSA, 2023 governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, broadly corresponding to the old Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
aSection 57 BSA
bSection 39 BSA
cSection 61 read with Section 63 BSA
dSection 105 BSA
Answer: C
Section 63 BSA [old s.65B IEA] governs admissibility of electronic records, and s.61 BSA clarifies electronic records shall not be denied admissibility merely for being electronic; together they form the new framework.
Q40BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Section 61 of the BSA, 2023 introduces a clarificatory rule about electronic records. What does it provide?
aElectronic records are admissible only as secondary evidence
bElectronic records require corroboration by oral evidence in every case
cElectronic records are presumed forged until proved genuine
dNothing in the Act shall apply to deny admissibility of an electronic or digital record merely on the ground that it is electronic, and it shall have the same legal effect as other documents
Answer: D
Section 61 BSA (a new provision) bars denial of admissibility of an electronic/digital record merely because it is electronic, giving it the same legal effect as paper documents, subject to s.63.
Q41BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
When a party seeks to prove an electronic record by producing the output (e.g. a printout or a copy) rather than the original device, the BSA, 2023 requires a certificate. Under Section 63 BSA, who must give that certificate?
aA person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device, AND an expert, in the form prescribed by the Schedule
bOnly the advocate appearing for the party
cAny witness who has merely seen the printout
dThe presiding judge of the trial court
Answer: A
Section 63(4) BSA [old s.65B(4) IEA] requires the certificate to be signed both by a person in charge of the device/management of activities and by an expert, in the form set out in the Schedule — a new feature over the old single certificate.
Q42BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
On the requirement of the Section 63 BSA / old Section 65B IEA certificate, which proposition reflects the law as settled by the Supreme Court (Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal)?
aThe certificate is optional in all cases because electronic records are primary evidence
bWhere secondary/output of an electronic record is tendered, the certificate is a mandatory condition precedent to admissibility; but it is not required where the original device itself is produced and proved by its owner
cOral evidence can always cure the absence of the certificate
dThe certificate is required even when the original device is produced in court
Answer: B
Per Anvar P.V. (2014) and the larger bench in Arjun Panditrao (2020), the s.65B(4)/s.63(4) BSA certificate is mandatory for the secondary output, but unnecessary when the owner produces the original device — the position carried into BSA.
Q43Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
A dying declaration was given by the deceased in Telugu but recorded in English, English being the language customarily used by the courts and the police. The accused challenges its admissibility on this ground. The court should:
aReject the declaration as inadmissible because it was not recorded in the maker's language
bReject it because translation introduces hearsay at one remove
cTreat it as admissible; if otherwise reliable, it is not vitiated merely by being recorded in another customarily-used language
dAdmit it only if the translator is examined as a witness
Answer: C
A reliable dying declaration is not rejected merely because it was given in one language and recorded in another customarily used by courts and police (Muralidhar @ Gidda v State of Karnataka). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q44Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
In a dowry-death case there are two dying declarations of the deceased that are at variance with each other. The duty of the court is to:
aReject both declarations because of the inconsistency
bAutomatically prefer the earlier-recorded declaration as the more spontaneous
cTreat the later declaration as conclusive because it is the most considered statement
dConsider each in its correct perspective and determine which reflects the true state of affairs, the prudent test being which is corroborated by other evidence
Answer: D
With multiple inconsistent dying declarations the court must examine each and ascertain which reflects the truth; the test of prudence is which one is corroborated by other prosecution evidence (Nallam Veera Satyanandam; Sudhakar v State of M.P.). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q45Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
On the question of who may record a dying declaration, the correct legal position is:
aIt can be recorded by anybody; it is not mandatory that only a Magistrate record it
bOnly a Magistrate or a doctor may record it
cOnly a judicial Magistrate may validly record it
dIt must be recorded by a police officer of at least the rank of Sub-Inspector
Answer: A
There is no rule that only a Magistrate may record a dying declaration; it can be recorded by anyone, though a Magistrate-recorded one stands on a higher footing (Surender Kumar v State of Punjab; Jaiprakash v State of Haryana). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q46Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Part of a dying declaration is found to be inaccurate. As to the use of the remaining part, the correct rule is:
aOnce any part is shown false, the entire declaration must always be rejected
bWhere the accurate part does not depend on the inaccurate part, the accurate part may be accepted; but if the false part cannot be severed, the whole must be rejected
cThe court must always accept the whole declaration and only adjust the weight
dThe accurate part is admissible only if independently corroborated by an eyewitness
Answer: B
If the accurate part's truth does not depend on the false part, it may be accepted; but where the false part cannot be severed, the declaration must be rejected as a whole (Godbu v State of Rajasthan). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q47Expert & opinion evidence, character
A document is alleged to be in X's handwriting. Which person is, in law, regarded as 'acquainted with the handwriting' of X so that his opinion is relevant under the BSA, 2023?
aA person who has merely heard from others that the writing is X's
bA person who is a relative of X but has never seen him write
cA person who has, in the ordinary course of business, habitually been submitted documents purporting to be written by X
dA person who has read the disputed document only once
Answer: C
Under BSA s 45 [old IEA s 47], one is 'acquainted' with another's handwriting when he has seen him write, received correspondence in answer to his own, or, in the ordinary course of business, has had documents purporting to be in that hand habitually submitted to him (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay).
Q48Expert & opinion evidence, character
During a trial the court itself wishes to compare a disputed signature with admitted signatures, and also directs a person present in court to write specified words for comparison. Which statement reflects the correct legal position?
aThe court has absolute and unfettered power to act as a handwriting expert in every case
bThe court can never compare handwriting; only an expert may do so
cSuch comparison by the court violates the Constitution and is void
dThe court may direct a person present to write words/figures and may compare writings, but it should be slow to do so and must not compare disputed signatures with signatures that are themselves not admitted without expert assistance
Answer: D
Under BSA s 119 [old IEA s 73] the court may direct a person present to write words/figures and may itself compare writings, but no absolute power exists; it must not compare disputed signatures against signatures that are not themselves admitted without expert aid (O Bharathan v K Sudhakaran; Hamida v Humer). These provisions do not violate the Constitution (Kathi Kalu Oghad).
Q49Expert & opinion evidence, character
A and B have long cohabited and held themselves out as husband and wife, and were generally accepted as such by relatives and friends, but no marriage ceremony is proved. A witness with special means of knowledge gives an opinion, expressed by conduct, that they are married. For which proceeding is such opinion NOT sufficient by itself to prove the marriage?
aA prosecution for the offence of bigamy
bA civil suit for partition of property
cA claim for compassionate appointment
dA succession certificate proceeding
Answer: A
Under BSA s 50 [old IEA s 50], opinion expressed by conduct as to relationship is relevant, but the proviso states it is not sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act 1869 or in prosecutions for bigamy, adultery or enticement. Long cohabitation raises only a rebuttable presumption of marriage (Badri Prasad v Dy Director of Consolidation).
Q50Expert & opinion evidence, character
In a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on a matter relating to information transmitted or stored in a computer resource or other electronic or digital form. Under the BSA, 2023, whose opinion is a relevant fact?
aThe Certifying Authority which issued the Digital Signature Certificate
bThe Examiner of Electronic Evidence
cAny police officer who seized the device
dThe system administrator of the network
Answer: B
Under BSA s 39(2)/s 46 [old IEA s 45A], when the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or other electronic/digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence is a relevant fact. The Certifying Authority's opinion is for digital signatures [old IEA s 47A].
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.
