Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) Test 4 — 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.
In a civil suit, the character of a party as such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is:
agenerally irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant, and except when character affects the amount of damages
balways relevant to assess the credibility of that party
crelevant only if the party has been previously convicted
drelevant in the same way as in criminal proceedings
Answer: A
Under BSA s 45 [old s 52 IEA] read with the damages provision [old s 55 IEA], in civil cases character is generally irrelevant unless it emerges from facts otherwise relevant, or where it affects the amount of damages receivable (Englishman v Lajpat Rai).
Q2Relevancy of facts
When the question is whether a particular act was done, the existence of a course of business according to which it would naturally have been done is relevant. The classic illustration is that a letter proved to have been properly addressed, posted and not returned is presumed to have been:
afabricated by the sender
bdelivered to the addressee
cintercepted by the Dead Letter Office
dnever written at all
Answer: B
Under BSA s 16 [old s 16 IEA], based on the maxim that acts are presumed done regularly, a letter properly addressed, posted and not returned is presumed delivered; the doing of an act may be inferred from the ordinary course of business.
Q3Relevancy of facts
Identification of an accused made by a witness at a Test Identification Parade is best described under the BSA scheme as:
asubstantive evidence sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction
bwholly inadmissible in all circumstances
cnot substantive evidence; it can be used only to corroborate or contradict the witness's identification made before the court
dbinding on the court without the witness being examined
Answer: C
Under BSA s 7 [old s 9 IEA], a TIP is only a step in investigation and is not substantive evidence; identification in court is the substantive evidence, and the TIP can only corroborate or contradict it (Malkhan Singh v State of MP; Matru v State of UP).
Q4Relevancy of facts
A is accused of murdering B. The prosecution seeks to prove that members of an unlawful assembly, while marching to force their way through a police cordon, shouted statements declaring their determination to do so. For such statements to be admissible as part of the same transaction (res gestae) under BSA, 2023, the essential requirement is that the statements must be:
aMade by the accused alone and recorded in writing
bConfirmed on oath by at least two independent witnesses
cMade after the transaction was complete but on the same day
dSpontaneous and contemporaneous with the fact in issue, without a time interval enabling fabrication
Answer: D
Under s 4, BSA 2023 [s 6 IEA], a statement is admissible as res gestae only if it is spontaneous and contemporaneous with the fact in issue, without any interval that could enable fabrication (S Pratap Singh v State of Punjab; Om Singh v State of Rajasthan).
Q5Relevancy of facts
A prosecution witness reached the scene of a murder only after the incident was over, did not herself see the attack, and was told what had happened by a bystander. Which statement best reflects the legal position on her evidence?
aHer account is inadmissible as direct evidence of the incident, but a statement of one who learnt of it from eye-witnesses may be used for corroboration
bHer account of the incident is fully admissible as res gestae
cHer account is admissible as substantive evidence because it was made on the same day
dHer account is admissible only if reduced to writing before the police arrived
Answer: A
Where a witness did not see the incident and learnt of it from a bystander, her account is inadmissible as direct evidence; a statement learnt from eye-witnesses can be used only for corroboration (Vijay Singh v Uttar Pradesh), under s 4, BSA 2023 [s 6 IEA].
Q6Relevancy of facts
The question is whether A robbed B. Which of the following facts is relevant as the 'occasion, cause or effect' or as constituting the state of things under which the fact in issue happened?
aThat A had been convicted of robbery ten years earlier
bThat shortly before the robbery B went to a fair with money and showed it, or mentioned having it, to third persons
cThat A is generally reputed to be dishonest in his locality
dThat A and B had once quarrelled over an unrelated land dispute
Answer: B
Under s 5, BSA 2023 [s 7 IEA], facts which are the occasion or which constitute the state of things affording an opportunity for the transaction are relevant; B's carrying and displaying money shortly before is such a fact.
Q7Relevancy of facts
When direct eye-witness evidence implicating the accused is found truthful and reliable, the role of proof of motive:
aBecomes the decisive factor for conviction
bRenders the eye-witness testimony inadmissible
cBecomes more or less academic and assumes a secondary role
dMust still be independently established beyond reasonable doubt
Answer: C
Where direct/eye-witness evidence is available and truthful, proof of motive recedes into the background and becomes academic, assuming only a secondary role (Murarilal Jivaram Sharma v State of Maharashtra; Podda Narayana v State of AP), under s 6, BSA 2023 [s 8 IEA].
Q8Relevancy of facts
A is charged with the murder of B by poison. Which fact relating to A's conduct/preparation is relevant under the provision on motive, preparation and conduct?
aThat A is of generally violent disposition
bThat A's neighbours suspected him
cThat A had once been acquitted in an unrelated trial
dThat, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B
Answer: D
Under s 6, BSA 2023 [s 8 IEA], the fact that A procured poison similar to that administered to B before B's death is relevant as preparation/conduct; preparation is proof of premeditation where the offence is committed.
Q9Relevancy of facts
Regarding the meaning of 'conduct' under the provision dealing with motive, preparation and conduct (s 6, BSA 2023), which statement is correct?
aConduct does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements
bConduct always includes a person's statements
cConduct never includes any statement in any circumstances
dConduct includes only statements made on oath
Answer: A
The word 'conduct' does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements (Bhagwandas Keshwani v State of Rajasthan), under s 6, BSA 2023 [s 8 IEA].
Where the language of a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective (a patent ambiguity), oral evidence to explain its meaning or supply the defect is:
aFreely admissible to ascertain the parties' real intention
bNot admissible; a patent ambiguity cannot be explained by oral evidence
cAdmissible only if the document is registered
dAdmissible only against a stranger to the document
Answer: B
Under s 98 BSA, 2023 [s 93 IEA], when the language of a document is on its face ambiguous or defective (patent ambiguity), evidence may NOT be given to show its meaning or supply its defect (Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel).
An electronic record (an email printout) is sought to be produced. Regarding the certificate that authenticates such electronic evidence under the BSA, 2023, the correct position is:
aNo certificate is ever required for electronic records
bOnly the original electronic device may be produced; certificates are not recognised
cInformation in an electronic record is admissible as a document on production of the prescribed certificate identifying the record and describing the manner of its production
dOral evidence alone is sufficient to prove the contents of any electronic record
Answer: C
Under s 63 BSA, 2023 [s 65B IEA], information contained in an electronic record, when accompanied by the prescribed certificate identifying the record and describing the manner of production, is admissible as a document without further proof of the original (Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer).
A tape recording is sought to be relied upon as evidence. Which of the following is NOT one of the recognised conditions for its admissibility?
aThe voice of the speaker must be identified, and the accuracy of the recording proved
bThere must be no possibility of tampering with or erasure of any part of the recording
cThe recording must be sealed and kept in safe or official custody
dThe recording must have been made with the prior written consent of the speaker
Answer: D
Per Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari and R.M. Malkani, admissibility of a tape recording requires identification of voice, proof of accuracy, no tampering, relevance, safe sealed custody and audibility; prior written consent of the speaker is not a condition.
A litigant seeks to prove the precise terms of a registered lease deed by leading the oral testimony of a clerk who personally drafted and read the document. Assuming no statutory exception applies, is this oral evidence of the contents admissible?
aNo, the contents of a document can only be proved by primary or admissible secondary evidence, not by oral testimony of the contents
bYes, because the clerk personally perceived the contents and oral evidence must be direct
cYes, because a person who drafted the deed is the best witness to its terms
dNo, but only because the witness is an interested party
Answer: A
Under BSA s.54 [IEA s.59], all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence; contents must be proved by primary or secondary documentary evidence (BSA ss.56-60 [IEA ss.61-65]). P Ram Reddy v Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305.
W is examined to prove that the deceased said he had been beaten by the accused. W states that he was told this fact by X, who heard it directly from the deceased. On the requirement that oral evidence be direct, what is the position of W's testimony?
aAdmissible, as W is repeating a relevant fact perceived by X
bInadmissible, because a fact which could be heard must be proved by the witness who himself heard it
cAdmissible, provided X is also examined to corroborate W
dAdmissible, as a dying declaration always overrides the direct-evidence rule
Answer: B
Under BSA s.55 [IEA s.60], oral evidence must in all cases be direct; a fact which could be heard must be proved by the witness who says he heard it. W only heard it from X, so his account is hearsay and inadmissible.
A will is required by law to be attested by two witnesses. Both attesting witnesses are alive and capable of giving evidence. In a probate proceeding, how must the propounder ordinarily prove the will's execution?
aBy proving the testator's signature alone through a handwriting expert
bBy producing the registration endorsement, which dispenses with attesting witnesses for wills
cBy examining at least one attesting witness who proves both the testator's signing and that each witness signed in the testator's presence
dBy the scribe's signature, which is sufficient proof of attestation
Answer: C
A will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness (BSA s.67 [IEA s.68]), who must speak to the testator's signature and that each witness signed in the testator's presence. Baldev v Dy Director of Consolidation 2015 (127) RD 584; the registration exception does not apply to wills.
A registered sale deed (not a will) is tendered in evidence. Its execution by the executant is NOT specifically denied. What is the requirement regarding attesting witnesses?
aOne attesting witness must always be examined regardless of denial
bBoth attesting witnesses must be examined because it is a registered document
cAttestation must be proved only by a handwriting expert
dIt is not necessary to call an attesting witness, since the document is registered and execution is not specifically denied
Answer: D
It is not necessary to call an attesting witness to prove any document (other than a will) registered under the Registration Act 1908 unless its execution is specifically denied (BSA s.67 proviso [IEA s.68 proviso]). Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez v Joosa Mariyan Fernandez [2000] 3 LRI 657.
A document is produced from proper custody and is proved to be 35 years old. A party asks the court to presume its signature, handwriting and attestation to be genuine. Which statement is correct?
aThe court may presume genuineness as to signature, handwriting, execution and attestation, but is not bound to do so
bThe court is bound to presume genuineness once the 30-year and proper-custody conditions are met
cNo presumption arises unless an attesting witness is also examined
dThe presumption applies only to public documents, not private ones
Answer: A
For a document 30 years old or more produced from proper custody, the court may (not must) presume genuineness as to signature, handwriting, execution and attestation (BSA s.92 [IEA s.90]). State of Bihar v Radha Krishna Singh AIR 1983 SC 684.
A party tenders a photocopy of an agreement, claiming the original is lost. The opponent objects that no foundation has been laid. Which of the following is the correct legal position?
aA photocopy is automatically secondary evidence and admissible the moment the original is alleged lost
bA photocopy becomes admissible secondary evidence only when foundational evidence proves both the loss of the original and that the copy is a true copy
cA photocopy is primary evidence if it is produced by a mechanical process
dA photocopy is never admissible as secondary evidence of a private document
Answer: B
A photocopy is not secondary evidence by itself; the loss of the original must be proved and the copy must be authenticated as a true copy by foundational evidence (BSA ss.58-60 [IEA ss.63-65]). Kaliya v Madhya Pradesh 2013 STPL (Web) 602 SC; Himatsngka Seide Ltd v Shambappa 2010 Cr LJ 1057.
Q19Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Which statement about estoppel by record (estoppel per rem judicatam) and issue estoppel in criminal trials is correct?
aIssue estoppel in a criminal trial bars the trial of the accused for any different offence
bIssue estoppel applies only where the parties, but not the facts in issue, are identical
cA finding of fact in favour of the accused at a former trial precludes the prosecution from leading evidence to upset that finding in a later trial
dA consent or default judgment can never operate as an estoppel between the parties
Answer: C
Masud Khan v State of UP: a finding of fact for the accused operates as issue estoppel barring reception of evidence to disturb it in a later trial, even for a different offence; it is not a bar to the trial itself. It requires identity of both parties and facts in issue.
Q20Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
The doctrine of approbation and reprobation (a species of estoppel by election) is best described by which proposition?
aA person may freely change his mind so long as he acts before judgment
bIt applies even to transactions between strangers who are not parties to it
cIt operates only where the party proves fraud by the opposite party
dA person, having a choice between two inconsistent courses, is treated as having elected and will not be regarded as having elected unless he has taken a benefit under the course first pursued
Answer: D
Nagubai Ammal v B Shama Rao: approbate-and-reprobate means the party is treated as having made an irrevocable election, but only if he has taken a benefit under the course first pursued; its operation is confined to the same transaction and to parties to it.
Q21Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Retrenched workmen, being in penury, were compelled to accept retrenchment benefits and later challenged the legality of the retrenchment. The management pleaded estoppel. What is the correct outcome?
aThe workmen are not estopped, as their acceptance was forced and not a voluntary election
bThe workmen are estopped, having accepted and retained the benefits
cEstoppel applies because acceptance of money is always conclusive evidence of waiver
dEstoppel applies only if the management proves it altered its position
Answer: A
Workmen of Subong Tea Estate held that workmen forced by penury to accept retrenchment benefits are not estopped from challenging the arrangement; election under the doctrine must be a voluntary act, not one forced by circumstances.
Q22Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it will be acted upon, and the promisee, relying on it, alters his position, which proposition is correct under the doctrine of promissory estoppel as settled in India?
aThe promise is unenforceable for want of consideration and a formal constitutional contract
bThe Government is bound by the promise notwithstanding absence of consideration or a formal contract, save where overriding public duty requires otherwise
cPromissory estoppel can only be used as a shield and never to found a cause of action
dPromissory estoppel cannot apply to the Government in any circumstances
Answer: B
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v State of UP: the Government is bound where it makes a promise intending action and the promisee alters his position, despite no consideration or formal contract; the doctrine yields only to overriding public interest/duty.
Q23Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
How does promissory estoppel differ from estoppel in pais under the Evidence statute?
aPromissory estoppel requires a representation of existing fact; estoppel in pais does not
bBoth require proof that the representation was false to the maker's knowledge
cPromissory estoppel can rest on a promise as to the future, whereas estoppel in pais requires a representation of an existing fact
dEstoppel in pais is an equitable doctrine while promissory estoppel is a statutory rule of evidence
Answer: C
Promissory estoppel, an equitable doctrine (Hughes v Metropolitan Rly), differs from estoppel in pais (BSA s.121 [IEA s.115]) in that the representation relied on need not be of present fact but may be a promise as to future conduct.
Q24Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Mere silence or inaction will amount to an estoppel only when which condition is satisfied?
aWhenever the other party in fact relies on the silence to his detriment
bWhenever the silent party had means of knowledge of the true facts
cOnly where the silence continues for a statutorily fixed period
dOnly where there is a duty to speak and the silence amounts to a fraud, the person being aware of his legal right
Answer: D
Silence is acquiescence amounting to estoppel only when there is a duty to speak and the silence amounts to a fraud; the person must be aware of his legal right (Canara Bank v Canara Sales Corpn; the duty to speak is the foundation of the doctrine).
Q25Burden 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 in fact belonged to a third party at the time of sale but afterwards becomes A's property. In a suit by A to set aside the sale on the ground that he had no title at the time of sale, the doctrine of estoppel (Section 121, BSA 2023) will:
apreclude A from proving his want of title in order to set aside the sale
bpermit A to prove his want of title, since title that vested later cannot relate back
capply only if B knew A had no title at the time of the sale
dhave no application because estoppel cannot operate on questions of land title
Answer: A
This is the statutory illustration to Section 121, BSA 2023 [old Section 115, IEA 1872]: having induced B to buy by representing the land as his own, A is estopped from later proving want of title to defeat the sale.
Q26Burden of proof, presumptions & estoppel
Which of the following is NOT an essential condition for invoking estoppel under Section 121, BSA 2023, as laid down in Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v Patel Narandas Haribhai?
aThe person claiming estoppel must show he was not aware of the true state of things
bThe representation must have been of a promise de futuro or of intention
cThere must have been action on the faith of the declaration, act or omission, altering the other party's position to his detriment
dThe representation must have been meant to be relied upon
Answer: B
In Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v Patel Narandas Haribhai (AIR 1982 SC 121) the Court held the representation must be of an existing fact, NOT a promise de futuro or of intention; the latter cannot found an estoppel under Section 121, BSA 2023 [old Section 115, IEA].
Q27Admissions & confessions
A confession is shown to have been tainted by coercion in respect of part of it. What is the correct legal consequence?
aOnly the coerced sentences are excluded; the rest is admitted as a non-confessional statement
bThe court may sever and admit the voluntary inculpatory portion
cThe taint attaches to each part and no portion may be separated and admitted
dThe confession is admissible if independently corroborated
Answer: C
Where a confession is not voluntary and is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it; it is not permissible to separate one part and admit it as a non-confessional statement (Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119).
Q28Admissions & confessions
Under the BSA, 2023 a confession of an accused is rendered irrelevant by inducement, threat or promise only if it satisfies certain conditions. Which is NOT a required condition?
aIt must have reference to the charge against the accused
bIt must proceed from a person in authority
cIt must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing he would gain a temporal advantage or avoid a temporal evil
dIt must have been made in the presence of a police officer
Answer: D
Section 22, BSA [s.24, IEA] requires the inducement/threat/promise to have reference to the charge, proceed from a person in authority, and be sufficient to suggest a temporal advantage or evil; presence of a police officer is not a requirement.
Q29Admissions & confessions
A confession was originally caused by an inducement from a person in authority. Later, after the impression of that inducement is, in the court's opinion, fully removed, the accused again confesses. The second confession is:
aRelevant, the impression of the inducement having been fully removed
bAlways irrelevant once the first was tainted
cRelevant only if recorded by a Magistrate
dRelevant only against a co-accused
Answer: A
A confession made after the impression caused by the inducement, threat or promise has, in the court's opinion, been fully removed is relevant (proviso to s.22, BSA [s.28, IEA]).
Q30Admissions & confessions
A confession is otherwise voluntary and relevant. It is later urged that it should be excluded because it was made under a promise of secrecy and the accused was not warned that it could be used against him. The confession is:
aInadmissible because of the promise of secrecy
bNot irrelevant merely on these grounds
cInadmissible for want of a caution
dAdmissible only if the accused was sober
Answer: B
An otherwise relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, by deception, when drunk, in answer to questions, or without a warning (s.22 explanation/proviso, BSA [s.29, IEA]).
Q31Admissions & confessions
In a joint trial of A and B for the same offence, A makes a confession implicating both himself and B. Which statement correctly describes the evidentiary use of A's confession against B?
aIt is substantive evidence and may by itself found B's conviction
bIt is wholly inadmissible against B
cIt may be taken into consideration but is not substantive evidence and cannot be the foundation of conviction
dIt is admissible against B only if A is also examined as a witness
Answer: C
Under s.24, BSA [s.30, IEA] the confession of a co-accused may be taken into consideration but has only corroborative value and cannot be the foundation of conviction (Haricharan Kurmi v State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184).
Q32Admissions & confessions
For the confession of one accused to be used against a co-accused, which condition must be satisfied?
aAn exculpatory admission of the maker is sufficient
bThe maker and co-accused need only be charged, not tried together
cThe maker may have been already discharged from the trial
dThe maker must implicate himself substantially to the same extent as the co-accused
Answer: D
Under s.24, BSA [s.30, IEA] the maker must implicate himself substantially to the same extent as the co-accused, the statement must be inculpatory, and both must be tried jointly for the same offence (Bhuboni Sahu v The King AIR 1949 PC 257; Suresh Kalani case on discharged accused).
Q33Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A prosecution witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor. The defence argues that his entire evidence must be discarded. Which statement reflects the correct law under the BSA, 2023?
aThe portion of his evidence supporting the prosecution that survives close scrutiny may be relied upon
bOnce a witness is declared hostile, his entire testimony stands automatically wiped out
cA hostile witness is necessarily a false witness whose evidence is wholly inadmissible
dEvidence of a hostile witness can be used only to contradict, never to convict
Answer: A
A hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness; under the scheme of Sections 157-158 BSA [old ss.154-155 IEA], the credible part surviving scrutiny may be acted upon (Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v State of Gujarat; Dhananjoy Chatterjee).
Q34Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
It is intended to contradict a witness by a previous statement reduced to writing. Under the BSA, 2023, before the writing may be proved for this purpose, what must be done?
aThe writing must be shown to him before any question is put about it
bHis attention must be called to those parts of the writing intended to be used for contradicting him
cThe writing must first be admitted as substantive evidence
dThe maker of the writing must be examined as a separate witness
Answer: B
Under Section 148 BSA, 2023 [old s.145 IEA], a witness may be cross-examined on a previous writing without it being shown to him, but if he is to be contradicted by it, his attention must first be drawn to the relevant parts.
Q35Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A witness, while under examination, wishes to refresh his memory by referring to a writing he had made about the transaction. The adverse party objects. Under the BSA, 2023, which is correct?
aHe may refresh memory only from the original, never from a copy under any circumstance
bHe may be compelled by the opposite party to refresh his memory from the writing
cHe may refresh memory from a copy with the court's permission where there is sufficient reason for non-production of the original
dAn expert is forbidden from refreshing memory by reference to professional treatises
Answer: C
Under Section 162 BSA, 2023 [old s.159 IEA], a witness may refresh memory from a copy with the court's permission if there is sufficient reason for non-production of the original; the witness may, not must, refresh his memory and an expert may refer to treatises.
Q36Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
A witness refreshes his memory at trial by referring to a writing. The adverse party demands to see it. Under the BSA, 2023, the adverse party's rights regarding that writing are that:
aHe may neither inspect it nor cross-examine on it as it is the witness's private record
bHe may inspect it but cannot cross-examine the witness on it
cHe may cross-examine on the entire series of writings of which it forms part
dHe may inspect it and cross-examine the witness upon it
Answer: D
Under Section 163 BSA, 2023 [old s.160 IEA], any writing used to refresh memory must be produced and shown to the adverse party, who may cross-examine the witness upon it; but not on other matters in the same series.
Q37Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
In cross-examination a prosecution witness was asked a question relevant only insofar as it tended to shake his credit by injuring his character, and he denied the suggestion. The defence now wishes to lead independent evidence to contradict that denial. Under the BSA, 2023:
aNo evidence may be given to contradict his answer, but he may be charged with false evidence if he answered falsely
bIndependent evidence may be led to contradict him on that collateral matter
cThe court must itself summon evidence to verify the answer
dThe answer becomes conclusive proof of the witness's good character
Answer: A
Under Section 153 BSA, 2023 [old s.153 IEA], where a question is relevant only to shake credit by injuring character, the answer is final and cannot be contradicted, though a false answer may attract a prosecution for false evidence.
Q38Witnesses, examination & cross-examination
Which of the following exceptions allows independent contradictory evidence to be led even though the question goes to the witness's credit, under the BSA, 2023?
aWhere the witness denies that he is related to a party
bWhere the witness, asked if he was previously convicted of a crime, denies it
cWhere the witness denies that he had a quarrel with the accused years ago
dWhere the witness denies that he is of immoral character
Answer: B
Section 153 BSA, 2023 [old s.153 IEA] makes credit answers final, but its exceptions permit contradiction where a witness denies a previous conviction or denies facts tending to impeach his impartiality.
Q39BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Two parties dispute whether the printout of a WhatsApp chat correctly reproduces the messages on the phone. The original phone is produced in court by its owner who proves the chat. On these facts, the requirement of the Section 63 BSA Schedule certificate is:
aMandatory, because all electronic records need the certificate
bRequired only from an expert, not from the owner
cNot required, because the owner has produced and proved the original device, which is primary evidence
dRequired to be given by the opposite party
Answer: C
Where the owner produces the original device (primary evidence under s.57 BSA), the s.63(4) certificate for secondary output is not needed — the certificate governs only computer output not produced through the original device (Arjun Panditrao).
Q40BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Under Section 63 BSA, 2023, for an electronic-record output to be admissible the conditions about the source computer/device must be satisfied. Which is NOT among the statutory conditions?
aThe computer/device was used regularly to store or process information during the relevant period by a person having lawful control over its use
bInformation of the kind contained in the record was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activities
cThe computer was operating properly (or, if not, the defect did not affect the accuracy of the record)
dThe output was personally examined and approved in writing by the trial judge before filing
Answer: D
Section 63(2) BSA [old s.65B(2) IEA] lists conditions of regular use, regular feeding of information, and proper operation of the device; there is no requirement of prior approval by the trial judge — that option is fabricated.
Q41BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Where information was processed over the relevant period by a combination of several computers/devices operating in succession or together, Section 63 BSA, 2023 provides that:
aAll the computers used for that purpose shall be treated as constituting a single computer/device for the purposes of the section
bEach computer is treated as a separate document requiring a separate suit
cOnly the last computer in the chain is relevant
dThe electronic record becomes inadmissible because multiple devices were used
Answer: A
Section 63(3) BSA [old s.65B(3) IEA] deems a combination of computers/devices used over the relevant period to be a single computer, so that records produced across linked systems remain admissible under one set of conditions.
Q42BSA new features (electronic/digital records as primary evidence)
Under the BSA, 2023, the expression 'documentary evidence' means and includes:
aOnly documents written, printed or lithographed upon paper and produced for the inspection of the court
bAll documents, including electronic or digital records, produced for the inspection of the court
cOnly certified copies of public documents tendered before the court
dAny statement made by a witness during examination regarding the contents of a writing
Answer: B
Under BSA s.2(1)(d) read with s.57 [old IEA s.3], 'documentary evidence' means and includes all documents, including electronic and digital records, produced for the inspection of the court (PC Purushothama Reddiar v S Perumal); the BSA's express inclusion of electronic/digital records is the key new feature.
Q43Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
The dying-declaration exception applies where the cause of a person's death comes into question. It is available:
aOnly in criminal proceedings for homicide
bOnly in criminal proceedings, whether homicide or suicide
cIn both civil and criminal proceedings, and whether the death is homicide or suicide
dOnly where the declarant was the victim of a cognizable offence
Answer: C
The statement is admissible in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the cause of death comes into question, and covers both homicide and suicide (Sandy v Ved Prakash; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q44Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
The same provision that admits dying declarations also makes admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule, a statement of a person who is dead (or cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, etc.) relating to the existence of a relationship by blood, marriage or adoption. Such a statement is admissible only if:
aIt was made on oath before a competent authority
bThe maker was a blood relative of both persons whose relationship is in question
cIt is corroborated by documentary evidence of the relationship
dThe maker had special means of knowledge of the relationship and the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised
Answer: D
Statements as to relationship are admissible where the maker had special means of knowledge and the statement was made before the dispute arose (Dolgobinda Paricha v Nimai Charan Misra; State v Babulal). Same provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q45Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
A short, straightforward oral dying declaration, free from infirmities, names a single assailant but does not narrate the entire incident or the case history. Which statement is correct?
aShort, straightforward declarations are usually more reliable; the law does not require an exhaustive report, and such a declaration may form the basis of conviction, the exact words being important
bIt must be rejected because it fails to cover the whole incident
cAn oral dying declaration can never form the basis of conviction
dIt is admissible only if reduced to writing and attested by two witnesses
Answer: A
Short, straightforward dying declarations are usually more reliable; the law does not require an exhaustive narration, and an oral declaration free from infirmities may sustain a conviction, with reproduction of the exact words being important (Babu v State of U.P.; Munnu Raja; Baboo v State of M.P.). Provision: S26 BSA [old S32 IEA].
Q46Dying declaration & statements (S26 BSA / old S32)
A is stabbed and, fearing death, tells a bystander that B attacked him. A recovers fully and later testifies at B's trial. What is the correct evidentiary status of A's earlier statement?
aIt remains a dying declaration and is admissible as such even though A survived.
bIt is not a dying declaration, but is admissible as a former statement to corroborate A's court testimony.
cIt is wholly inadmissible because the maker did not die.
dIt is admissible only as a confession of the assailant's identity.
Answer: B
A dying declaration requires that the maker subsequently die; where the declarant survives, the statement is not a dying declaration but is admissible as a former statement to corroborate his testimony (Ramesh Prasad Misra; Maqsoodan v State of UP). Section 26 BSA 2023 [old S32 IEA].
Q47Expert & opinion evidence, character
In a rape prosecution where consent is in issue, the defence seeks, in cross-examination of the victim, to adduce evidence of her general immoral character and previous sexual experience to prove consent. Under the law reflected in the BSA, 2023, this is:
aPermissible, as character of the prosecutrix is always relevant on consent
bPermissible if the court grants prior written permission
cNot permissible; such evidence/questions as to general immoral character or previous sexual experience are barred for proving consent or its quality
dPermissible only if the prosecutrix is shown to be a woman of easy virtue
Answer: C
Where consent is in issue in a sexual-assault prosecution, it is not permissible to adduce evidence or put questions in cross-examination about the victim's general immoral character or previous sexual experience to prove consent or its quality (BSA s 53A; cf old IEA s 53A). Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to refuse and to privacy (Madhukar Narayan Mardikar; Gurmit Singh).
Q48Expert & opinion evidence, character
Whenever the opinion of a living expert is relevant, the BSA, 2023 also makes which of the following relevant?
aOnly facts which corroborate the expert and never facts inconsistent with him
bThe expert's personal financial interest, but not the grounds of his opinion
cOnly the expert's professional qualifications
dThe grounds on which such opinion is based, and facts not otherwise relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the expert's opinion
Answer: D
Under BSA s 51 [old IEA ss 46 and 51], facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts when such opinions are relevant, and whenever a living person's opinion is relevant the grounds on which it is based are also relevant.
Q49Expert & opinion evidence, character
Before a court may safely act upon the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert to base a conviction, which two matters must be proved beyond doubt according to the leading authority?
aThe genuineness of the specimen/admitted handwriting, and that the expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence
bThat the document is more than thirty years old and was produced from proper custody
cThat the expert holds a Government post and that he charged no fee
dThat the expert used a microscope and that two experts concurred
Answer: A
Before acting on a handwriting expert's opinion (relevant under BSA s 39 [old IEA s 45]) for a conviction, two things must be proved beyond doubt: the genuineness of the specimen/admitted handwriting, and that the expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence (State of Maharashtra v Sukhdeo Singh). Such evidence is frail and is only corroborative (Murari Lal v State of MP).
Q50Expert & opinion evidence, character
A is prosecuted for murder by shooting. The prosecution relies on the report of a ballistic expert who, when the suspected firearm was not produced for examination, gave only a tentative opinion at the court's insistence. Which statement is correct under the BSA, 2023?
aThe tentative opinion is wholly inadmissible because an expert must always give a definite opinion
bSuch opinion evidence is advisory; the expert is not guilty of perjury for a tentative opinion given on the court's insistence, and the court forms its own independent judgment
cThe expert may be prosecuted for perjury for having changed/qualified his opinion
dThe court is absolutely bound by the ballistic expert's opinion once tendered
Answer: B
Under s 39 BSA [s 45 IEA] expert evidence is advisory; per Premsagar Manocha v State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2016 SC 290, an expert giving a tentative opinion on the court's insistence is not guilty of perjury, and the court forms its own independent judgment.
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.
