Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

Former statement of a witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to the same fact, as provided under Section . . . . . . . . of the Indian Evidence Act.

Correct Answer: Section 157

If a maker of dying declaration survives, his statement can be used under Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
1. As substantive evidence
2. To corroborate the testimony of maker if examined
3. To contradict the testimony of maker if examined
4. Cannot be used at all

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition

Choice the correct propositions:
1. Evidence of fingerprint expert is substantive evidence.
2. Evidence of fingerprint expert can be used only to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.
3. Evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence.
4. Evidence of fingerprint expert is admissible in all circumstances as expert evidence.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of confessional evidence
1. So much of the information as it relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused may be proved against him.
2. Person giving such information must be accused of an offence.
3. Accused need not be in the police custody.
4. Any statement of the accused confessing his guilt must be made in presence of a Magistrate, in all cases, whether anything is discovered or not in consequence of such statement, may be proved against him.

Proposition of the Law of Evidence is that
1. Proceedings of Legislature may be proved by the records certified by a member present in the proceedings.
2. Acts of the Central Government may be proved by the records of the department, certified by heads of the departments.
3. Acts of the state may be proved by the document purporting to be printed by the order of such Government.
4. Acts of the State Government may be proved by records of the department certified by the head of the corresponding department of the Central Government.

Select the incorrect statements:
1. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings.
2. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before a Commissioner appointed by the court for recording evidence
3. The Indian Evidence Act applies to affidavits presented to Courts
4. The Indian Evidence Act applies to judicial proceedings held before all kinds of military courts

Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?

Nothing in section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence is provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under:

Fact in issue' is defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that 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'. In a case where 'A' is accused of murder, which one of the following fact is not a fact in issue?