Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) Test 3 — 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.
Where reasonable ground exists to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence, anything said, done or written by one conspirator in reference to the common intention is relevant against another conspirator. According to the principle in Sardul Singh Caveeshar and the BSA conspiracy provision, this is relevant against a co-conspirator even if such act was done:
abefore he joined the conspiracy or after he left it
bonly while he was actively a member of the conspiracy
conly after he had personal knowledge of every such act
donly in his own favour and not against him
Answer: A
Under BSA s 8 [old s 10 IEA], based on the theory of agency/partnership (Sardul Singh Caveeshar), the act of one conspirator in reference to the common intention is relevant against another whether done before he entered or after he left the conspiracy, even if he was ignorant of it.
Q2Relevancy of facts
Statements made by alleged conspirators after they are arrested are:
arelevant against all co-conspirators because the conspiracy is presumed to continue
bnot within the conspiracy provision, because by that time the conspiracy would have ended
crelevant only to prove the existence of the conspiracy but not complicity
drelevant only if reduced to writing in the presence of a Magistrate
Answer: B
Under BSA s 8 [old s 10 IEA], statements made by conspirators after arrest fall outside the section because the common intention/conspiracy has ended by then (State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu); only acts in reference to the still-subsisting common intention qualify.
Q3Relevancy of facts
The question is whether A committed a crime that, on the circumstances, must have been committed by A, B, C or D. Every fact showing that the crime was not committed by B, C or D, and could have been committed by no one else, is relevant. Such facts are admitted because they:
aform part of the same transaction as the crime
bshow the general bad character of A
care facts which, by themselves or with other facts, make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable
dare the opinion of the investigating officer
Answer: C
Under BSA s 9 [old s 11 IEA], facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if they make a fact in issue highly probable or improbable; eliminating B, C and D renders A's authorship highly probable.
Q4Relevancy of facts
On the question whether an act done by A was accidental or intentional, the prosecution leads evidence that the same act formed part of a series of similar occurrences in each of which A was concerned. Under the BSA, this evidence is:
ainadmissible, being mere evidence of similar facts and bad character
badmissible only in civil cases
cadmissible only if A has a previous conviction
dadmissible to prove intention or knowledge and to rebut the defence of accident
Answer: D
Under BSA s 15 [old s 15 IEA], where an act forms part of a series of similar occurrences, evidence of similar facts is admissible to prove intention/knowledge and to rebut accident (Noor Mohamed v The King), as an exception to the general exclusion of similar facts.
Q5Relevancy of facts
In a prosecution resting on circumstantial evidence, the relevance and importance of proof of motive, as compared with a case resting on direct eyewitness evidence, is:
agreater in circumstantial cases, where motive forms a link in the chain, and recedes to a secondary role where reliable direct evidence exists
bthe same in both kinds of cases
calways decisive, so absence of motive must result in acquittal
dirrelevant in both kinds of cases
Answer: A
Motive is relevant under BSA s 6 [old s 8 IEA]. Per Sheo Shankar Singh and Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia, motive gains importance as a link in circumstantial cases but recedes to a secondary/academic role where there is truthful direct evidence.
Q6Relevancy of facts
After a robbery, C said in A's presence, 'the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B', and A immediately ran away. The fact that A ran away is relevant under the BSA as:
aa fact which is the occasion or cause of the robbery
bthe conduct of a person against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings, influenced by a fact in issue
cthe opinion of C as to A's guilt
da similar fact tending to show A's disposition
Answer: B
Under BSA s 6 [old s 8 IEA], conduct of a person against whom an offence is the subject of a proceeding is relevant if it is influenced by a fact in issue; A running away on hearing C's statement is such relevant conduct (illustration to the section).
Q7Relevancy of facts
Regarding the 'last seen together' circumstance, which statement best reflects the settled position under the BSA framework?
aBeing last seen with the deceased is by itself conclusive proof of guilt warranting conviction
bIt is irrelevant and can never be used against the accused
cA conviction cannot be recorded merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased; the time gap must be so small that the possibility of another being the author becomes near-impossible
dIt applies only in civil proceedings
Answer: C
Last-seen evidence is relevant conduct/circumstantial evidence under BSA s 6 [old s 8 IEA]. Per Dharam Deo Yadav and Ashok v Maharashtra, it is not conclusive; conviction cannot rest on it alone and the time gap must exclude the possibility of any other author.
Q8Relevancy of facts
In a criminal prosecution, evidence of the accused's character is governed by the BSA as follows:
aBad character is always relevant to show the accused is likely to have committed the offence
bGood character is irrelevant, but bad character is always relevant
cBoth good and bad character are wholly irrelevant in criminal cases
dGood character is relevant, while previous bad character is generally irrelevant unless the accused has given evidence of good character (or bad character is itself a fact in issue)
Answer: D
Under BSA ss 46-47 [old ss 53-54 IEA], in criminal cases the accused's good character is relevant (Habeeb Mohammad), whereas bad character is irrelevant unless evidence of good character has been given or bad character is itself a fact in issue (Mangal Singh).
Q9Relevancy of facts
A is tried for shooting at B. The prosecution wishes to prove that A had shot at B on an earlier occasion to establish that the present act was intentional and not accidental. The earlier shooting is relevant primarily because it shows:
aa state of mind (intention) existing in reference to the particular matter in question, not merely generally
bA's general bad character and disposition to violence
ca fact forming part of the same transaction as the present shooting
dthe occasion or opportunity for the present offence
Answer: A
Under BSA s 14 [old s 14 IEA], a fact showing a state of mind is relevant only if it shows that state of mind in reference to the particular matter in question; the prior shooting at the same B is admitted to prove intention, not general disposition.
When the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, oral evidence of an oral agreement between the parties to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from those terms is barred. Which of the following is a recognised EXCEPTION permitting such oral evidence?
aProof that one party later regretted the bargain
bProof of a separate oral agreement on a matter on which the document is silent and which is not inconsistent with its terms
cProof that the price was a fair one
dProof that the document was lengthy
Answer: B
Under the provisos to s 95 BSA, 2023 [s 92 IEA], the existence of a separate oral agreement on a matter on which the document is silent and not inconsistent with its terms may be proved (Balaram v Ramesh).
A party contends that a registered sale deed was a sham and was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties. To prove this, oral evidence is:
aBarred, because the rule excluding oral evidence applies to all written documents
bAdmissible only if the deed is unregistered
cAdmissible, because the bar applies only when a party relies on the document as embodying the transaction, not when he says it was never intended to operate
dBarred unless fraud is separately pleaded
Answer: C
The bar under s 95 BSA, 2023 [s 92 IEA] applies only when a party relies on the document; oral evidence is admissible to show the document is a sham never intended to operate as an agreement (Gangabai v Chhabubai).
Before a party can give secondary evidence of a document which is in the possession of the opposite party, he must ordinarily first:
aObtain the court's prior sanction in writing
bFile an affidavit of the contents
cGet the document impounded
dGive the opposite party notice to produce the original (unless notice is dispensed with)
Answer: D
Under s 64 BSA, 2023 [s 66 IEA], secondary evidence of a document in the adverse party's possession is not admissible unless the party first gave a notice to produce, save in the excepted cases where notice is unnecessary.
In which of the following situations is notice to produce the original NOT required before secondary evidence may be given?
aWhen the document to be proved is itself a notice
bWhen the document is an ordinary registered sale deed in the other party's custody
cWhen the original is in the lawful custody of a public office
dWhen the document is more than 12 years old
Answer: A
Under the provisions corresponding to s 64 BSA, 2023 [s 66 IEA], notice to produce is unnecessary where the document to be proved is itself a notice (Lokchand Prithi Singh v Union of India).
A document is required by law to be attested (other than a will) and has been registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908. To prove its execution, calling an attesting witness is:
aAlways mandatory because the document is attested
bNot necessary, unless execution by the person who purports to have executed it is specifically denied
cNecessary only if the document is over 30 years old
dNecessary only in criminal proceedings
Answer: B
Under s 68 BSA, 2023 [s 68 IEA proviso], a registered document (not being a will) need not be proved by an attesting witness unless its execution is specifically denied (Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez).
A 35-year-old document is produced from custody which the court considers proper. As to the signature, handwriting, execution and attestation, the court:
aMust conclusively hold it genuine
bCannot make any presumption; strict proof is required
cMay presume it to be genuine, but is not bound to do so
dMust reject it unless an attesting witness is called
Answer: C
Under s 93 BSA, 2023 [s 90 IEA], a document 30 years old from proper custody may be presumed genuine as to signature, handwriting, execution and attestation; the presumption is discretionary, not mandatory (State of Bihar v Radha Krishna Singh).
dA record kept by a public office of a private document registered with it
Answer: D
Under s 74 BSA, 2023 [s 74 IEA], public records kept in any State of private documents are public documents; all other documents are private (Gopal Das v Sri Thakurji).
An entry of date of birth in a school admission register, made on the statement of the child's now-deceased father, is tendered to prove the person's age. Such an entry is:
aRelevant and admissible, but of little evidentiary value absent the material on which the age was recorded
bConclusive proof of age
cWholly inadmissible
dAdmissible only against the school authorities
Answer: A
An entry of date of birth in a school register is relevant and admissible under s 28 BSA, 2023 [s 32 IEA] / public-record provisions, but has little evidentiary value without the basis on which the age was entered (Birad Mal Singhvi v Anand Purohit).
A sale deed acknowledges receipt of the full sale consideration. The vendor seeks to lead oral evidence that part of the consideration was, in fact, never received. This oral evidence is:
aBarred, as it would vary the terms of the deed
bAdmissible, because the receipt of consideration is not a term of the sale deed and may be disproved by oral evidence
cAdmissible only if the deed is unregistered
dBarred unless the buyer admits non-payment
Answer: B
An acknowledgment of receipt of consideration is not a 'term' of the deed; under the law explained in s 94/95 BSA, 2023 [ss 91-92 IEA], oral evidence may be given that the amount acknowledged was not in fact received (Mohammad Taki Khan v Jang Singh).
Q19Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Which one of the following is NOT an essential ingredient for an estoppel to arise under BSA, 2023 s.121 [old IEA s.115]?
aThere must be a representation of an existing fact, not a mere promise de futuro
bThe other party must have believed the representation and acted on the faith of it to his prejudice
cThe representation must have been false to the knowledge of the person making it
dThe person claiming estoppel must show he was not aware of the true state of things
Answer: C
Estoppel does not require the representation to be false to the maker's knowledge; an innocent misrepresentation suffices (Gadigeppa v Balangowda; Jorden v Money). The other three are settled ingredients of s.121 [IEA s.115].
Q20Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
On whom does the burden of proving the ingredients of estoppel under the Evidence statute lie, and on what footing does estoppel operate?
aOn the party against whom estoppel is pleaded, because it is a substantive rule of property
bOn the court, which must presume estoppel once a representation is shown
cOn whichever party first pleads it, and it creates an independent interest in property
dOn the party claiming the benefit of estoppel, and it operates as a rule of evidence (a disability)
Answer: D
The burden of proving the ingredients of estoppel lies on the party claiming it; estoppel is a rule of evidence operating as a disability that bars the representor from denying the truth of what he caused another to believe (BSA s.121 [IEA s.115]).
Q21Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A University's school record indicated that a student had passed the examination, and on that basis the student continued his further studies for a year. The University later sought to deny that he had passed. Which proposition correctly reflects the law on estoppel here?
aThe University is estopped from denying that the student passed, having let him alter his position over a year
bThe University is not estopped, since there is no estoppel against a public body
cEstoppel fails because a school record is a record attracting only estoppel by record
dEstoppel applies only if the student proves actual financial loss
Answer: A
Registrar, University of Madras v Sundara Shetty held the University estopped where the student acted on the recorded result for a year; contrast SA Manjunath, where the mistake was corrected immediately and no detriment ensued (BSA s.121 [IEA s.115]).
Q22Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A sale deed of property is executed by a father and is attested by his son, who raises no objection to the sale. Years later the son claims an interest in the same land. What is the correct position?
aThe son may claim his interest, as mere attestation is not a representation
bThe son is estopped by conduct from assailing the sale or claiming any interest in the land
cEstoppel does not arise because silence can never amount to a representation
dThe son is bound only if he took a benefit under the sale deed
Answer: B
In Mahboob Sahab v Syed Ismail the son who attested without objection was held estopped by conduct from assailing the sale or claiming interest, his conduct being an unambiguous representation acted upon (BSA s.121 [IEA s.115]).
Q23Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Regarding the requirement of detriment in estoppel by representation, which statement best reflects the modern position adopted by the Supreme Court?
aThe party must always quantify and prove actual financial damage suffered
bDetriment is irrelevant; mere belief in the representation is enough
cAlteration of position by the aggrieved party is the indispensable requirement; further proof of damage is not necessary
dEstoppel is measured strictly by the amount of prejudice actually sustained
Answer: C
Paradise Printers v UT of Chandigarh held that alteration of position is the only indispensable requirement; it is not necessary to prove further damage or prejudice, and where prejudice exists, estoppel's consequences are not measured by its quantum.
Q24Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A tenant accepts an estate and pays rent to the landlord. Under BSA, 2023 s.122 [old IEA s.116], which estoppel arises during the continuance of the tenancy?
aOnly the tenant is estopped; the landlord may freely deny the existence of the tenancy
bNeither is estopped, since acceptance of rent is merely a question of fact
cThe estoppel binds only the landlord, who may not evict during the lease
dThe tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title, and the landlord from denying the tenancy
Answer: D
Acceptance of rent on one hand and of an estate on the other raises a mutual estoppel (BSA s.122 [IEA s.116]): the landlord cannot deny the tenancy and the tenant cannot deny the landlord's title (Tej Bhan Madan; Pal Singh v Sunder Singh).
Q25Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
A man takes a second wife while his first marriage subsists, which is illegal, and treats the second woman as his wife. In her application for maintenance she pleads estoppel against the husband. What is the correct legal position?
aShe cannot rely on estoppel, as there is no estoppel against a statute
bEstoppel applies because the husband held her out as his wife
cEstoppel applies once she proves detriment from acting as his wife
dEstoppel applies because both parties were equally aware of the facts
Answer: A
In Yamunabai v Anantrao the Supreme Court held that estoppel cannot be invoked to validate what statute renders void; there is no estoppel against a statute, so the second wife cannot claim maintenance on that plea (principle under BSA s.121 [IEA s.115]).
Q26Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Estoppel by negligence requires that the negligence be in the transaction itself and be its proximate cause. On this principle, which of the following gives rise to an estoppel?
aA person who does not lock up his goods, which are then stolen and sold by the thief to a buyer
bA railway/warehouseman who issues duplicate delivery orders for the same goods, on which another advances money
cA company that appoints a secretary known to have committed forgery, who later forges a cheque
dA bank that certifies a cheque with blank spaces later fraudulently enlarged by the drawer
Answer: B
Issuing documents with mercantile meaning carries a duty of care; a warehouseman issuing duplicate orders for the same goods may be estopped (Coventry v Great Eastern Rly). In the other cases the negligence is not the proximate cause in the transaction.
Q27Admissions & confessions
Which of the following about an extra-judicial confession is correct?
aIt is the strongest form of evidence and needs no scrutiny
bIt is inadmissible in all circumstances
cIt is by its nature a weak type of evidence to be approached with caution, though a reliable one may form the basis of conviction
dIt can never form the basis of a conviction even if reliable
Answer: C
Per Arul Raja v State of Tamil Nadu and S Arun Raja, an extra-judicial confession is by its nature a weak type of evidence requiring caution, but if reliable, trustworthy and voluntary it may be relied upon to found a conviction.
Q28Admissions & confessions
An accused makes a confession before a Magistrate and later retracts it at trial. Which statement reflects the correct legal position?
aA retracted confession can never be the basis of conviction
bA retracted judicial confession must be jettisoned the moment it is retracted
cA retracted confession requires corroboration in material particulars, the same standard as accomplice evidence
dA retracted confession, if found true and voluntary, may form the basis of conviction, but general corroboration is ordinarily looked for before acting on it
Answer: D
Per Pyare Lal Bhargava and Subramania Goundan v State of Madras, a retracted confession that is true and voluntary may found a conviction; only general corroboration is required (unlike accomplice evidence, which needs corroboration in material particulars).
Q29Admissions & confessions
In a civil suit, an admission was made by a party. In which of the following situations can that admission be proved BY or on behalf of the person who made it?
aWhere it is a statement of a state of mind or body, made at about the time such state existed and accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable
bWhenever the maker wishes to rely on it
cOnly if it was reduced to writing and signed
dOnly if the opposite party consents
Answer: A
Under BSA s 20 [old IEA s 21], a person cannot ordinarily prove his own admission, except inter alia where it is a statement of a contemporaneous state of mind or body supported by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable, where it would be relevant as between third persons if the maker were dead, or where relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Q30Admissions & confessions
A confessional statement made by an accused, otherwise voluntary, leads to the recovery of the murder weapon from where he had buried it. Which of the following best states the legal position regarding such statement under the BSA, 2023?
aThe whole confession becomes admissible because a fact was discovered
bOnly so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered may be proved
cNothing is admissible since it was made in police custody
dThe entire statement is admissible only if a Magistrate later confirms it
Answer: B
Under s.23(2), BSA, 2023 [s.27, IEA] only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is provable, whether or not it amounts to a confession (Pulukuri Kotayya v Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67).
Q31Admissions & confessions
X is accused of theft. While in police custody but in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, he makes a confession which is duly recorded in the manner prescribed by the BNSS. Is the confession admissible?
aNo, because all confessions in police custody are barred
bNo, because confessions to police officers are always inadmissible
cYes, the custodial bar does not apply when the confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate
dYes, but only against a co-accused
Answer: C
The bar on custodial confessions [s.26, IEA; carried into BSA s.23] does not apply when the confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate; if also recorded as the law requires it is admissible (Zwinglee Ariel v State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 15).
Q32Admissions & confessions
Which statement about the relationship between admissions and confessions is most accurate as per settled law?
aAll admissions are confessions but not all confessions are admissions
bAdmissions and confessions are mutually exclusive categories
cConfessions are relevant only in civil proceedings
dAll confessions are admissions but not all admissions are confessions
Answer: D
All confessions are admissions and therefore ordinarily relevant, but an admission becomes a confession only when it amounts to an acknowledgment of the offence by the person charged (Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119).
Q33Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
The credit of a witness may be impeached under the BSA, 2023. Which of the following is NOT a recognised mode of impeaching the credit of a witness?
aBy proof that, in a prosecution for rape, the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character.
bBy the evidence of persons who testify that, from their knowledge of the witness, they believe him to be unworthy of credit.
cBy proof that he has been bribed, or accepted the offer of a bribe, or received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence.
dBy proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.
Answer: A
Under BSA s.158 [old IEA s.155], credit may be impeached by (a) evidence of unworthiness, (b) proof of bribery/corrupt inducement, and (c) proof of inconsistent former statements. The former clause permitting attack on the prosecutrix's immoral character was deleted (2003); cross-examination on her general immoral character is now barred (BSA proviso to s.151 / old IEA s.146).
Q34Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A witness gives evidence of a relevant fact. The party wishes to corroborate that witness's own testimony by proving a former statement made by the witness relating to the same fact. Under the BSA, 2023, such a previous statement is admissible to corroborate the witness only if it was made:
aat any time, however long after the fact, provided it is reduced to writing.
bat or about the time the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact.
conly on oath before a magistrate, irrespective of the time it was made.
dby any other witness who observed the same fact, to corroborate the present witness.
Answer: B
Under BSA s.160 [old IEA s.157], a former statement of a witness may corroborate his own later testimony only if made at or about the time the fact occurred or before an authority legally competent to investigate it; a delayed statement giving scope for concoction has no corroborative value (Nathuni Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 1808).
Q35Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A man is on trial for receiving stolen property. The prosecution wishes to prove the contents of a document by producing a copy. Under the judge's power to regulate the order of proof in examination of witnesses (BSA, 2023), which is correct?
aThe copy may be admitted straightaway; the fact that the original was lost need not be proved.
bThe judge has no discretion over the order in which facts are proved; parties decide freely.
cWhere it is proposed to prove the contents of a document by a copy, the fact that the original was lost (or otherwise admitting secondary evidence) must be proved first.
dThe judge may dispense with primary evidence of any document at his own discretion in every case.
Answer: C
Under BSA s.145 [old IEA s.136], where evidence of a fact is admissible only on proof of another fact, that other fact must be proved first — e.g. to prove contents of a document by a copy, the loss of the original must be proved first. The judge controls the order of proof but cannot generally dispense with primary evidence.
Q36Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
During a sessions trial, the prosecution wishes to ask its own witness leading questions in examination-in-chief regarding the witness's name, address and occupation, to which the defence objects. Which statement is correct under the BSA, 2023?
aLeading questions can never be put in examination-in-chief once objected to
bLeading questions in examination-in-chief require the prior written consent of the accused
cIntroductory matters must be proved only through documentary evidence, not by leading questions
dThe court may permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed or already sufficiently proved
Answer: D
Under Section 146 BSA, 2023 [old s.142 IEA], leading questions objected to in examination-in-chief are barred, but the court may permit them as to matters introductory, undisputed, or already sufficiently proved.
Q37Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A witness for the plaintiff has been examined-in-chief and tendered. The defendant insists that leading questions cannot be asked even in cross-examination without the court's leave. Which is the correct position under the BSA, 2023?
aLeading questions may be asked in cross-examination
bLeading questions in cross-examination require leave of the court in every case
cLeading questions are barred in cross-examination if the adverse party objects
dLeading questions may be asked only to introductory matters in cross-examination
Answer: A
Under Section 149 BSA, 2023 [old s.143 IEA], leading questions may be asked in cross-examination as of right (Amrit Lal Hazra v King Emperor).
Q38Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A prosecution witness, while being examined-in-chief, begins to depose in a manner destructive of the prosecution case, showing he is not desirous of telling the truth. The public prosecutor seeks to put cross-examination-style questions to him. Under the BSA, 2023, the correct course is:
aThe prosecutor must give up the witness entirely; nothing he says can be used
bThe court may, in its discretion, permit the party calling the witness to put questions which might be put in cross-examination
cOnly the trial judge, not the prosecutor, may question such a witness
dThe witness's entire testimony is automatically wiped out once he turns hostile
Answer: B
Under Section 157 BSA, 2023 [old s.154 IEA], the court may in its discretion permit the party who calls a witness to put cross-examination questions; declaring a witness hostile does not wipe out his evidence (Sat Paul v Delhi Administration).
Q39BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
An entry stating a relevant fact is made in an official register that is maintained in electronic form by a public servant in discharge of his duty. Under the BSA, 2023, such an entry in an "electronic record" of a public body is:
aIrrelevant, because only paper public registers are recognised
bAdmissible only with the Schedule certificate signed by an expert
cRelevant, and the court may presume its genuineness, the provision now expressly covering electronic records
dRelevant only if the public servant testifies orally
Answer: C
Section 28 BSA [old s.35 IEA] now expressly includes 'electronic record' among official books/registers; entries by a public servant in discharge of duty are relevant and the court may presume genuineness.
Q40BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Under the BSA, 2023, the general rule that the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence is excepted. As against documents including electronic records, contents must be proved by:
aOral evidence of any person who saw the screen
bAffidavit alone
cJudicial notice in every case
dPrimary or, where admissible, secondary evidence — and all facts EXCEPT the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence
Answer: D
Section 54 BSA [old s.59 IEA] provides all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence; contents need documentary (primary/secondary) proof — the rule now expressly names electronic records.
Q41BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
A printout taken from a website is tendered, but it is not accompanied by the certificate prescribed under Section 63 BSA, and the original server/device is not produced. Applying the settled position, the printout is:
aInadmissible as electronic-record evidence, the certificate being a condition precedent for such secondary output
bAdmissible as primary evidence automatically
cAdmissible if the contents are not denied
dAdmissible once the advocate certifies it
Answer: A
Where only the computer output (printout/copy) of an electronic record is tendered without producing the original device, the s.63(4) BSA [old s.65B(4) IEA] certificate is mandatory; its absence renders the output inadmissible (Arjun Panditrao).
Q42BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Regarding presumptions, which statement about electronic records under the BSA, 2023 is correct?
aThe court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic record without any condition
bThe court presumes that a secure electronic record, or an electronic signature affixed by a secure process, has not been altered/is genuine, by reference to the Information Technology Act, 2000 framework
cNo presumption of any kind attaches to electronic records
dElectronic records carry a presumption of forgery
Answer: B
Section 91 BSA [old s.85B IEA] preserves the presumption that a secure electronic record/secure electronic signature has not been altered, tied to the IT Act regime — a continued special presumption for electronic records.
Q43Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Medical evidence shows that at the relevant time the deceased might not have been in a fit physical and mental state to make the detailed statement attributed to her. The correct approach is:
aThe court should always substitute its own assessment for the doctor's opinion
bFitness of the maker is irrelevant once the declaration is recorded by a Magistrate
cThe dying declaration has to be struck off the evidence, and unless there is something inherently defective in the doctor's opinion, the court will not substitute its own
dThe declaration must be accepted if any single witness deposes the maker was conscious
Answer: C
Where medical evidence shows the deceased was not in a fit state to make a detailed statement, the declaration must be struck off, and absent an inherently defective medical opinion the court will not substitute its own (Manzoor v State of U.P.; Mafabhai Nagarbhai Rawal v State of Gujarat). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q44Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Concerning the practice of an investigating officer himself recording the dying declaration, the correct position is:
aIt is the most preferred mode because the IO is best placed to investigate
bSuch a declaration is per se inadmissible and can never be relied upon
cIt is admissible only if the IO is later examined and cross-examined
dSuch recording is to be discouraged as the IO is interested in the investigation's success, and may be relied upon only where there was no time or facility for better methods
Answer: D
Recording by the IO is discouraged since he is interested in the investigation succeeding, and is relied on only where there was no time or facility for a better method (Munnu Raja v State of M.P.; Dalip Singh v State of Punjab). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q45Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
Which of the following statements would NOT be admissible under the dying-declaration exception?
aA statement of the deceased having no proximate relation to the actual occurrence resulting in death
bA statement by the deceased identifying who beat him, even if it does not narrate the whole incident
cA statement furnishing the immediate motive for the transaction that resulted in death
dA letter written by the deceased directly connected with the circumstances of her death, though written some weeks earlier
Answer: A
The statement must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death and bear a proximate relation to the occurrence; statements with no such proximity are inadmissible (Rattan Singh v State of H.P.; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q46Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
On the phrase 'circumstances of the transaction' which resulted in death, as used in the dying-declaration exception, the correct view is:
aIt is wider than 'circumstantial evidence' and covers all relevant facts
bIt is narrower than 'circumstantial evidence' and than 'res gestae'; the circumstances must have a proximate relation to the actual occurrence
cIt is co-extensive with the doctrine of res gestae
dIt is limited to statements made at the very moment of the fatal injury
Answer: B
'Circumstances of the transaction' is narrower than 'circumstantial evidence' and than 'res gestae'; the circumstances must have proximate relation to the occurrence (Rattan Singh v State of H.P.; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q47Expert & opinion evidence, character
The court has to ascertain the meaning of certain obsolete technical terms used by a particular trade, and the usages of a particular sect. Under the BSA, 2023, whose opinion is relevant on such usages, tenets and the meaning of words used by particular classes of people?
aAny member of the general public
bOnly a Government linguist
cPersons having special means of knowledge thereon
dOnly a person who has taken an oath before a notary
Answer: C
Under BSA s 49 [old IEA s 49], when the court has to form an opinion on usages and tenets of any body of men or family, the constitution of any religious/charitable foundation, or the meaning of words used in particular districts or by particular classes, the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge are relevant (Ahmad Khan v Mt Channi Bibi).
Q48Expert & opinion evidence, character
An accused person leads evidence in a criminal trial that he is of good character. Only after this does the prosecution seek to prove his bad character. Under the BSA, 2023, which statement is correct?
aGood character of the accused is irrelevant in criminal cases
bBad character of the accused is always relevant regardless of any good-character evidence
cNeither good nor bad character can ever be proved in a criminal trial
dGood character is a relevant fact in criminal proceedings, and bad character becomes relevant once the accused has given evidence of good character
Answer: D
Under BSA ss 53-54 [old IEA ss 53-54], in criminal cases the good character of the accused is relevant, while bad character is irrelevant unless evidence of good character has been given (or bad character is itself a fact in issue) (Habeeb Mohammad v State of Hyderabad; Mangal Singh v State of MP).
Q49Expert & opinion evidence, character
A defence witness wishes to prove the accused's good character by deposing to a specific past act of charity, rather than to general reputation. Under the BSA, 2023, is this permissible?
aNo; except in relation to proof of bad character, evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, not of particular acts
bYes, particular acts are the best proof of character
cYes, but only if the act was witnessed by two persons
dNo, because good character is wholly irrelevant in criminal trials
Answer: A
Under the BSA character provisions [explanation to old IEA ss 53-55], 'character' includes reputation and disposition, but evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition and not of particular acts by which they were shown (Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v State of Maharashtra).
Q50Expert & opinion evidence, character
In a civil suit for defamation, the defendant seeks to lead evidence of the plaintiff's bad character. Under the BSA, 2023, when is the character of a party relevant in a civil case?
aCharacter is always relevant in civil cases to show probability of conduct
bCharacter is generally irrelevant, but is relevant in so far as it affects the amount of damages the party ought to receive (or where it appears from otherwise relevant facts)
cBad character is freely admissible in all civil suits
dCharacter can never be relevant in a civil case under any circumstances
Answer: B
Under BSA ss 52 and 55 [old IEA ss 52, 55], in civil cases character is generally irrelevant to render conduct probable/improbable, except where it appears from otherwise relevant facts, and is relevant when it affects the amount of damages the party ought to receive (Englishman v Lajpat Rai).
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.
