The Indian Evidence Act Questions 21 to 40 (3 Marks)

Q21.Why the Evidence Act is deemed as “Lex Fori”?

“Lex Fori” means the law of the country in which an action is brought. The Evidence Act is “Lex Fori”. It means evidence is one of those matters which are governed by the law of the country in which the proceedings take place (lex fori) . Evidence is means of proof. Proof is the effect of evidence.

All questions relating to the admission or rejection of evidence shall be determined by the law of the country where the question arises, where the remedy is sought to be enforced and where the court sits to enforce it. Where evidence is taken in one country in aid of a suit or action in another country, either on ordinary commission or with assistance of local courts, the law applicable to the recording of the evidence would be the law prevailing in the country where the proceeding is going on. For example, A lends money to B in England. they enter into a contract according to the English law. A brings an action against B in a court in India. A tenders evidence to prove his debt which is admissible under the law of England but is inadmissible under the law of india. The evidence is admissible so it cannot be adduced.

Q22. Gopal is tried for the offence of murder of Ram by beating him with iron Rod with an intention to cause his death.

a) On which point evidence can be given?

b) What are the facts in issue

a) In this case on facts in issue and relevance of facts, evidence can be given. According to Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts which are relevant as mentioned in Ss. 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the expression “facts in issue” means and includes— any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.  ‘Fact in issue’ are those facts, which are alleged by one party and denied by other parties in the pleading in a civil case or alleged by the prosecution and denied by the accused in a criminal case. A fact in issue is called the “principal fact” or factum probandum.

Q23. A dying declaration of Sita has been recorded on 3-occasions as under.

1. When Sita was brought in hospital she made a statement before the Doctor :- My mother in law pour kerosene on my body and my husband me on fire.
2. After one hour Site made a statement before the police officer that my mother in law, father in law and husband poured Kerosene on my body and they set me on fire ; and
3. Dying declaration of Sita was recorded by the Magistrats during midnight wherein she has stated that who poured Kerosene on my body and who set me on fire I cannot recall and name the person

a. Which statement of Site can be considered as a Dying Declaration?

b. What is the evidential value of the above Dying declarations?

a) The third statement given by Sita which was recorded by the Magistrats during midnight will be considered as a dying declaration. (Section 32 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872)

b)  Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc ., is relevant and Section 33 of the Act, relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated, gives evidentiary value to Dying Declaration.

Q27. Ram and Raghav are charged with the offence of murder of Gopal. During the trial Raghav made a statement before a Magistrate implicating Ram in the offence.

 a.Can statement of Raghav can be used against Ram?

 b. What is the evidential value of the statement of Raghav?

a) Yes, the statement of Raghav can be used against Ram

b) The statement of Raghav has evidentiary value with the facts in issue and relevance of facts.

28. A is on his trial for the murder of ‘C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by ‘A’ & ‘B’, ‘B- said ‘A’ & I murdered ‘C’.

a) What is the effect of said statement?

b) Whether it can be used against A? Give reason.

a) According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned. Thus, the statement of B is an admission. Under Section 21 of the Act, such an admission is relevant and may be proved as against the person (in this case B) making it.

b) No, it cannot be used against ‘A’ because A and B are not tried jointly. Hence, Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable.

Q29. A agrees in writing to sell a horse to B for Rs. 1000 or Rs.1500.

a) Whether evidence can be given to show which price was to be given?

b) give reason with provision.

a) In this case the evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.

b) According to Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 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. 

Q30.A sues for money due on a bond the execution of bond is admitted but ‘B’ says it was

obtained by fraud which ‘A’ denies.

a) whom burden of prove lies A or B? Give reason with provision.

 b) In above matter if execution of bond is not admitted what difference it. Makes? Then  burden lies on whom to prove? Give reason.

a) According to Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Hence in this case the burden of proof lies on ‘B’

b)If the execution of the bond is not admitted, in such a case, the burden of proof would lie on ‘A’.

.Q31. Raghu is arrested for committing a murder. Immediately after his arrest, Raghu voluntarily confesses to the police officer in the police station. He discloses in his confession, the place where he has hiden the weapon with which he committed the offence.

a) Will Raghu’s statement amount to confession?

b) When can a confession be taken to be relevant as per law? Explain.

a) According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Hence confession of Raghu to the police officer in police station is not admissible in evidence and cannot be brought on record by the prosecution and is insufficient to convict the accused.

b) According to Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Thus the confession made by any person in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. It becomes relevant as per the law.

Q32. Birju threw acid on Asha’s face who is a 12 year old school going girl. A case was made against him. During the trial, Asha was also summoned to be examined as a witness. However, during the trial, the defence lawyer raised an objection on her being examined as a witness.

 a) Can Asha be examined as a witness in this case? Explain why?

 b) What would have been the scenario if Asha was deaf and dumb? Explain?

a) Yes, a minor witness can testify. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions 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.

b) In spite of being deaf and dumb, Asha would have been testified under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the deaf and dumb witness is prevented from narrating the incident by making signs, gestures, etc. under Section 119 of the Act, the interpreter can be called to interpret the same.

Q33. Robert intentionally leads Peter to believe that one acre of a particular land belongs to him and thereby induces Peter to buy and pay for the land. The land at the time of sale did not belong to Robert but after three months of Sale, Robert becomes the owner of the said land. Now, he seeks to set aside the sale between himself and Peter.

a) Can the Sale be set aside between them? Why?

b) Explain the Doctrine applicable to such kind of cases with the help of relevant  provisions.

a) No, in this case Sale cannot be set aside, as Mr. Robert is stopped from denying his title to the land which earlier he claimed to have (Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

b) The doctrine of estoppel is applicable in this case.According to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belied, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Q34 .Advocate Tanaji was appointed in the criminal case against a pauper, by magistrate. The Advocate appeared in the case at trial and found that the witness tendered by prosecution is a ‘ dumb’ person and prosecutor himself was narrating to court what that ‘dumb witness’ has seen at the scene of offence.

a) Can such a witness testify in a case at the Court?

b) Was the prosecutor Correct? Justify.

c) What should have he done?

a) Yes, a dumb witness can testify. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions 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.

b) No, the prosecutor is not correct in narrating to court what that ‘dumb witness’ has seen at the scene of offence. Under Section 118 the dumb witness can also testify.

c) If the dumb witness is prevented from narrating the incident by making signs, gestures, etc. under Section 119 of the Act, the interpreter would have been called to interpret the same.

Q35. Mr. Akshay was suspected of murder of Miss Karuna. He was apprehended by police and brought to the police station. The police inspector had was well built and had a rough voice and appearance. Being afraid that he would beat, Mr. Akshay gave in writing to the Police inspector, while in his custody, that “I have murdered Miss Karuna with a knife and I have hidden it in an old house, I can show it to you if you take me there”. In this situation.

a) What portion if any is admissible in evidence out of the statement by Mr. Akshay to police?

b) What is the reason why the entire statement cannot be accepted in evidence?

a) Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the portion of statement “I have hidden it (knife) in an old house, I can show it to you if you take me there” is admissible. Because it can be used for discovery of weapon of crime. According to Section 27 of the Act, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

b) The phrase used “so much of such information” in Section 27 of the Act, means no other disclosure statement or confession made by the accused to the police officer is admissible in evidence, so far it does not relate to the discovery of weapon.

Q36. Priti agrees in writing to sell a horse to Pradeep for Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500.

a) Whether evidence can be given to show which price was to be given?

b) Give reason with provision.

a) In this case the evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.

b) According to Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 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. 

Q37. Sudhir’ a Govt. servant, commits misappropriation of funds for the purpose of marrying his daughter. ‘Sudhir’ communicates this to his wife Wani’. Five years later, “Sudhir’ and “Wani’ got divorced. A year after his divorce, Sudhir is put on trial for the offence of criminal misappropriation Wani is produced as a witness by prosecution against Sudhir. Can Wani’s testimony be accepted by the Court? Discuss.

No,Wani’s testimony cannot be accepted by the court. It is privileged communication. This privilege continues even after the marriage has been dissolved by the death or divorce. (Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)

 Under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.

Q38. Miss Aruna, an unmarried girl was accused of murder of her newly born child. She was sent in police custody and later on sent for medical examination. While being examined by the Doctor, Miss. Aruna made a confession to the Doctor that she has committed murder of her said newly born child, at that time this statement was overheard by the Police Constable who was waiting outside to take back Miss Aruna to the police Custody-

a) Is the confession made by Miss Aruna to the Doctor ‘admissible’ in evidence?

b) What is the binding effect of such a confession on Miss Aruna ?

a) It is not admissible in evidence as it is extra-judicial confession.

b) An extra-judicial confession, if it is voluntary, truthful, reliable and beyond reproach, is an efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It requires rto be corroborated by reliable independent evidence.

Q39. A seriously injured victim on reaching the hospital tells the doctor on duty that “X has stabbed me because, and before completing the sentence, he collapses and dies. Discuss the relevancy and veracity of the above dying declaration in the trial of X for murder. According to the Supreme Court of India, dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction subject to certain precautions. What are these precautions ?

In this case the statement made by victim to the doctor amounts to dying declaration and is a relevant fact. A dying declaration is defined under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as a statement made by a person as to the circumstances or the cause of their death, which becomes relevant when the cause of death of the person is in question in the case. It must be corroborated with other evidence.

In Kusa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980, SC 559 case, the Supreme of India held that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction subject to certain precautions. The precautions are as follows:

• Dying declaration is true and voluntary;
• It is coherent  and consistent;
• It is not a result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination;
• The person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.
• There is no legal impediment in founding the conviction on such a dying declaration, even if there is no corrobation.

Q40. What is meant by Estoppel?

Part III , Chapter VIII containing Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 , lay down the provisions relating to the “doctrine of Estoppel” Section 115 embodies the principle of Estoppels. Estoppel is rule of evidence, by which a person is not allowed to plead the contrary of a fact or state of things, which he formally asserted as existing. 

According to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

‘A’ intentionally and falsely leads ‘B’ to believe that certain land belongs to ‘A’ and thereby induces ‘B’ to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of ’A’ and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, He had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Indian Evidence Act Questions 1 to 20
Indian Evidence Act Questions 21 to 40
Indian Evidence Act Questions 41 to 60
Indian Evidence Act Questions 61 to 80
Indian Evidence Act Questions 81 to 100
Indian Evidence Act Questions 101 to 120
Indian Evidence Act Questions 121 to 133