Facts discovered in consequences of a joint information
(a) are not admissible and can not be used against any of the accused person
(b) are admissible and can be used against any one of the accused person
(c) are admissible and can be used against all the accused persons
(d) both (a) & (c) are correct.
Confession of an accused is admissible against the other co-accused
(a) under section 28 of Evidence Act
(b) under section 29 of Evidence Act
(c) under section 30 of Evidence Act
(d) under section 31 of Evidence Act.
Confession of one accused is admissible against co-accused
(a) if they are tried jointly for the same offences
(b) if they are tried jointly for different offences
(c) if they are tried for the same offences but not jointly
(d) if they are tried for different offences and not jointly.
Confession of a co-accused, not required to be on oath and cannot be tested by cross- examination
I. is no evidence within the meaning of section 3 of Evidence Act and cannot be the foundation of a conviction
II. the only limited use which can be made of a confession of a co-accused is by way of furnishing an additional reason for believing such other evidences as exists
III. it is a very weak type of evidence and is much weaker even than the evidence of an approver.
In the aforesaid propositions
(a) all I, II & III are correct
(b) only I & III are correct
(c) only I & II are correct
(d) only II & III are correct.
‘Necessity rule’ as to the admissibility of evidence is contained in
(a) section 31 of Evidence Act
(b) section 32 of Evidence Act
(c) section 60 of Evidence Act
(d) section 61 of Evidence Act.
Necessity rule as to the admissibility of evidence is applicable, when the maker of a statement
(a) is dead or has become incapable of giving evidence
(b) is a person who can be found but his attendance can not be procured without unreasonable delay or expenses
(c) is a person who can not be found
(d) all the above.
Under section 32 of Evidence Act, a statement of a person who is dead, to be admissible
(a) must relate to the cause of his own death
(b) may relate to the cause of someone else’ death
(c) may relate to the cause of his own death or someone else’ death
(d) both (b) & (c) are correct.
The person whose statement is admitted under section 32 of Evidence Act
(a) must be competent to testify
(b) need not be competent to testify
(c) may or may not be competent to testify
(d) only (a) is correct and (b) & (c) are incorrect.
A dying declaration is admissible
(a) only in criminal proceedings
(b) only in civil proceedings
(c) in civil as well as criminal proceedings both
(d) in criminal proceedings alone & not in civil proceedings.
A dying declaration
(a) can form the sole basis of conviction without any corroboration by independent evidence
(b) can form the basis of conviction only on corroboration by independent witness
(c) cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated by independent witness
(d) only (b) & (c) are correct.
A dying declaration to be admissible
(a) must be made before a Magistrate
(b) must be made before the police officer
(c) may be made before a doctor or a private person
(d) may be made either before a magistrate or a police officer or a doctor or a private person.
Declaration in course of business are admissible
(a) under section 32(1) of Evidence Act
(b) under section 32(2) of Evidence Act
(c) under section 32(4) of Evidence Act
(d) under section 32(7) of Evidence Act.
Declaration as to custom are admissible
(a) under section 32(1) of Evidence Act
(b) under section 32(2) of Evidence Act
(c) under section 32(4) of Evidence Act
(d) under section 32(7) of Evidence Act.
Under section 32(4) of Evidence Act, the declaration
(a) as to public rights & customs are admissible
(b) as to private rights & customs are admissible
(c) as to both public and private rights and customs are admissible
(d) only as to customs are admissible.
Opinions of experts are relevant
(a) under section 45 of Evidence Act
(b) under section 46 of Evidence Act
(c) under section 47 of Evidence Act
(d) under section 48 of Evidence Act.
Under section 45 of Evidence Act, the opinion of expert can be for
(a) identity of hand writing
(b) identity of finger impression
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) neither (a) nor (b).
Under section 45 of Evidence Act the opinion of expert can be on the question of
(a) Indian law
(b) Foreign law
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) only (a) & not (b).
Opinion of an expert under section 45 of Evidence Act
(a) is a conclusive proof
(b) is not a conclusive proof
(c) is supportive & corroborative in nature
(d) either (a) or (c).
A disputed handwriting can be proved
(a) by calling an expert
(b) by examining a person acquainted with the handwriting of the writer of the questioned document
(c) by comparison of the two-admitted & disputed handwritings
(d) all the above.
The res inter alia acta is receivable
(a) under section 45 of Evidence Act
(b) under section 46 of Evidence Act
(c) under section 47 of Evidence Act
(d) under section 48 of Evidence Act.
Entries in the books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are admissible under section 34 of Evidence Act
(a) if they by themselves create a liability
(b) if they by themselves do not create a liability
(c) irrespective of whether they themselves create a liability or not
(d) either (a) or (b).
When the court has to ascertain the relationship between one person and another, the opinion of any person having special means of knowledge and expressed by conduct is admissible
(a) under section 51 of Evidence Act
(b) under section 50 of Evidence Act
(c) under section 52 of Evidence Act
(d) under section 49 of Evidence Act.
The relationship in section 50 of Evidence Act means
(a) relationship by blood only
(b) relationship by blood or marriage
(c) relationship by blood or marriage or adoption
(d) only (a) and not (b) & (c).
Opinion as to relationship of marriage under section 50 of CPC
(a) is admissible in cases of offences against marriage
(b) is admissible in proceedings under Indian Divorce Act
(c) is admissible both in (a) & (b)
(d) is neither admissible in cases of offences against marriage nor in proceedings under Indian Divorce Act
Propositions under Evidence Act are
I. In civil cases, character evidence is inadmissible unless the character of a party is a fact in issue.
II. In criminal cases, the evidence of good character is admissible generally.
III. In criminal proceedings, evidence of bad character is inadmissible unless the same is a fact in issue.
IV. In criminal proceedings evidence of bad character is admissible when evidence of good character has been given. In relation to the above propositions which of the following is correct statement
(a) all the four (I, II, III & IV) are correct
(b) I, II & III are correct but IV is incorrect
(c) I & II are correct but III & IV are incorrect
(d) I & III are correct but II & IV are incorrect
(e) I, II & IV are correct but III is incorrect
(f) II, III & IV are correct but I is incorrect.
Facts of which the judicial notice is to be taken are stated in
section 56 of Evidence Act
section 57 of Evidence Act
section 58 of Evidence Act
section 55 of Evidence Act.
List of facts of which the judicial notice has to be taken under section 57 of Evidence Act
(a) is exhaustive
(b) is illustrative only
(c) is both (a) & (b)
(d) is neither (a) nor (b).
Facts which need not be proved by the parties include
(a) facts of which judicial notice has to be taken
(b) facts which have been admitted by the parties at or before the hearing
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) neither (a) nor (b).
The court may in its discretion call for proving the facts
(a) of which judicial notice has to be taken
(b) which have been admitted otherwise than such admissions
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) neither (a) nor (b).
Oral evidence under section 60 of Evidence Act may be
(a) direct only
(b) hearsay
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) either (a) or (b).
