ExamVeda
Login
Home

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court of India...

This question belongs to Law Indian Evidence Act
Indian Evidence Act
?

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court of India held that the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of an accomplice should ordinarily be corroborated by some other evidence:

Answer & Solution
Correct Answer: Option A
Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion
Examveda
Question posted by Examveda
Community

Join the Discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.
Keep Learning

Related Questions on Indian Evidence Act

Which section of the Indian Evidence Act protects communication during marriage?
A. Section 122 B. Section 123 C. Section 124 D. Section 125
'B', 'C' and 'D' never saw 'A' writing. But they give their opinion about the handwriting of 'A'. The opinion of which one is relevant?
A. Of 'B', because 'B' is a merchant in Delhi. 'A' has written many letters addressed to 'B' B. Of 'C' because 'C' is a clerk of 'A' 'C's duty was to examineand file A's correspondence C. Of 'D' because 'D' is Z's broker to whom Z habitually submitted the letters purporting to Bwritten by 'A' for the purpose of his advice D. Of all the above
The privilege to withhold the documents/information under the administrative law is enacted in which of the following Sections of the Evidence Act?
A. Section 120 B. Section 126 C. Section 123 D. Section 98
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits the use of discovery evidence, which lays down strictly as to how much of the information contained in the statement of the accused is made admissible. Which one of the following information is relevant under this Section?
A. That relates to only the place of occurrence B. That relates to nature of the object C. That relates to the past user of the object D. Information given by the accused, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered
More Related Questions on Indian Evidence Act