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:
A. Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer, AIR 2007 SC 794
B. Youaraj Rai v. Chander Bahadur Karki, AIR 2007 SC 561
C. Kamla Devi v. Khushal Kanuiar, AIR 2007 SC 663
D. Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2006 SC 115
Answer: Option A
Which section of the Indian Evidence Act protects communication during marriage?
A. Section 122
B. Section 123
C. Section 124
D. Section 125
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
A. Section 120
B. Section 126
C. Section 123
D. Section 98
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
Join The Discussion