Indian Evidence Act MCQ question and answer

61

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

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

62

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is based on

A) Doctrine of agency B) Doctrine of proportionality C) Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events D) Doctrine of eclipse

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

63

Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with the relevance of:

A) Characters B) Opinion of third persons C) Judgements, decree and orders D) Statements made under special circumstances

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

64

Whenever it is provided in the Indian Evidence Act that the Court may presume a fact

A) May call for proof of that fact B) The court is bound to regard that fact as proved C) The parties can presume that fact as proved D) That fact is conclusive proof

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

65

Under section 9 of Evidence Act

A) The identification parades of suspects are relevant B) The identification parades of chattels are relevant C) Both A and B are relevant D) Only A and not B is relevant

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

66

Which of the following section of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to interrogations by a Customs Officer exercising power under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act?

A) Section 131 B) Section 132 C) Section 133 D) Section 134

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

67

In which one of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that confession of co-accused are very weak evidence and no conviction can be based solely on such confession?

A) Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh B) Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab C) Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh D) None of the above

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

68

The statements of dead persons are relevant under which provision

A) Section 13(a) B) Section 32(1) C) Section 48 D) Section 49

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

69

Important case related to 'Identification Parade' is

A) Ramnathan v. State of Tamil Nadu B) Ram Lochan v. State of West Bengal C) Queen Empress v. Abdullah D) All of these

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

70

Who among the following is competent to adduce evidence under Indian Evidence Act?
1. Dumb witness
2. Deaf witness
Select the correct answer:

A) 1 only B) 2 only C) Both 1 and 2 D) Neither 1 nor 2

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

Indian Evidence Act MCQ question and answer | Law MCQ question