Indian Evidence Test - 3

Option (1) is incorrect: No such provision.
Option (2) is incorrect: No such provision.
Option (3) is incorrect: No such provision.
Option (4) is correct: When the question is whether a man is alive or dead and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him, if he had been alive, it is presumed to be a civil death.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 'fact' means and includes any thing, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Option (2) is correct: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 'court' includes all judges and magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators.

Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 'documents' mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.

Option (4) is incorrect: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
Option (2) is correct: Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with refreshing memory.
Option (3) is incorrect: Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with judge’s power to put questions or order production.
Option (4) is incorrect: Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with former statements of witness that may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to the same fact.

Option (1) is correct: Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
Option (2) is incorrect: B doesn’t desire the court to give judgement, so he doesn’t require to prove the existence of facts.
Option (3) is incorrect: C is not a party to offence, so he doesn’t require to prove the existence of facts.

Option (1) is incorrect: The evidence shall not be given in the above situation.
Option (2) is incorrect: The evidence shall not be given in the above situation.
Option (3) is incorrect: The evidence shall not be given in the above situation.
Option (4) is correct: Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that when a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him.

Option (1) is incorrect: Oral evidence about the contents of public documents is not admissible in law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: As per Section 76 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872, every public officer shall give the person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document of part thereof, dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Photostat copy of public document is not admissible as secondary evidence.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Written admission of public document is not admissible as secondary evidence.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, the ticket checker is under no burden to prove the existence of ticket.
Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, the Railways is under no burden to prove the existence of ticket.
Option (3) is correct: Under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. So, burden of proof is on A himself.
Option (4) is incorrect: Prosecution is Railways in the fact and the Railways is under no obligation to proof the facts of existence of ticket.

Option (1) is incorrect: The cause of death must be known while reading the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Option (2) is incorrect: The statement of deceased, i.e. dying declaration must always relate to the death of the deceased only.
Option (3) is incorrect: Circumstances connected with death always taken into consideration.
Option (4) is correct: Verbal statement is also relevant and admissible by the deceased.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the language used in a document is on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.

Option (1) is correct: Under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a document is produced from any custody which the court, in the particular case, considers proper, then the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting only if the document is purporting or proved to be thirty years old.

Options (2), (3) and (4) are incorrect.

Option (1) is correct: Under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, it is a presumption as to documents that are thirty years old.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, it is not a rebuttable presumption of law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, it is not an irrebuttable presumption of law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, it is not a presumption of facts and law both.

Option (1) is incorrect: Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
Option (2) is correct: A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, such as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in an open court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
Option (3) is incorrect: Evidence given by dumb person is relevant and admissible in evidence.
Option (4) is incorrect: Always admissible; doesn’t depend on the court’s discretion.

Option (1) is incorrect: The facts in the given situation is not indicating B’s motive of libel.
Option (2) is incorrect: In the above facts, the conduct of B is not influenced by any fact in issue.
Option (3) is correct: Under Sec 9 of Indian Evidence Act, Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, admissions made by parties could not be oral only.
Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, admissions made by parties could not be documentary only.
Option (3) is correct: Admissions can be both oral or documentary.
Option (4) is incorrect: Admissions are not conclusive proof, but may operate as estoppels.

Option (1) is incorrect: Accomplice is competent to testify. As Section 118 says that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a child is competent to testify if he can understand the questions put to him or give rational answers.
Option (3) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a dumb person is competent to testify if he can understand the questions put to him or give rational answers whether orally or in writing. 
Option (4) is correct. Under the Indian Evidence Act, a lunatic who is not able to understand the question and to give a rational answer is not competent to testify.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 59 deals with proof of facts by oral evidence.
Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 63 deals with secondary evidence.
Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 63(A) deals with special provision as to evidence relating the electronic record.
Option (4) is incorrect: Under Indian Evidence Act, Section 63(A) deals with proof as to digital signature.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts are relevant.
Option (2) is correct: Under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Option (3) is incorrect: Not relevant under Section 9. It deals with explanation and introduction of facts.
Option (4) is incorrect. Not relevant under Section 7. It deals with facts which are the occasion, cause and effect of the fact in issue.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required.
Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required.
Option (3) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, statute directs that no particular number of witnesses is to be adduced.
Option (4) is correct. Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not rebuttable presumption of law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not rebuttable presumption of fact.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not a mixed presumption of law and fact.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is correct. Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be a conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man.