Evidence Act MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Evidence Act - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Affidavit.

Key Points

• An affidavit is a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.
• It must be signed before an authorized person, such as an oath commissioner or a notary public.
• Affidavits are used in various legal proceedings, including civil and criminal cases, to present facts that the affiant swears to be true.
• They are often required for legal processes like property disputes, name changes, or in support of motions and petitions.

Additional Information

• Notary Public
  • A notary public is an official authorized to perform acts in legal affairs, particularly witnessing signatures on documents.
  • They ensure the authenticity of the signing parties and help prevent fraud.
  • Notaries also administer oaths and affirmations, certify copies of documents, and provide acknowledgments.
• Oath Commissioner
  • An oath commissioner is appointed to administer oaths and affirmations and to certify affidavits.
  • They play a crucial role in ensuring that the contents of the affidavits are true to the best knowledge of the affiant.
• Legal Uses of Affidavits
  • Affidavits are used in court cases as evidence to support claims or defenses.
  • They may be required in various legal transactions, such as real estate deals, to verify identity, residency, or ownership.
  • In family law, affidavits can be used in matters like child custody, divorce, and adoption proceedings.
• Types of Affidavits
  • Common types include affidavits of support, affidavits of residence, and financial affidavits.
  • Each type serves a specific purpose and must comply with the relevant legal standards and requirements.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points✅ Correct Option: 4) The testimony of person who saw the pitiable condition of a young woman in her in-laws home where she met her death

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, hearsay evidence refers to a statement made outside the court that is presented to prove the truth of the matter stated, without the declarant being called as a witness. It is generally inadmissible unless it falls under an exception (e.g., dying declaration, res gestae, etc.).

Option-wise Analysis:

1. ❌ Identification by someone not present at the scene – hearsay if based on what others said, not personal knowledge.

2. ❌ Villagers' claims repeated by a witness – classic example of hearsay (not firsthand).

3. ❌ News item – also hearsay; not direct evidence and not verified by the author.

4. ✅ Testimony of a person who personally observed the woman’s condition – this is direct evidence, not hearsay, because the witness is speaking from personal observation.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key PointsSection 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling.––
Facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.
Explanation 1.––A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Explanation 2.––But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key PointsSection 9 of Indian Evidence Act: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.––
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. 

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points Law of Evidence is procedural in nature, and in legal terminology, it is referred to as Lex Fori, which means “the law of the forum” or “law of the court where the case is tried.”

This is because:

• Rules of evidence are governed by the procedural law of the place where the court is located.

• It applies irrespective of where the cause of action arose.

The correct option is When matter in question is sufficiently proved.

Key Points

• Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with the concept of leading questions.
• A leading question is one which suggests the answer or puts words in the mouth of a witness. 
• It is a question that prompts or encourages a witness to give a particular answer. 
• Under the Indian Evidence Act, a leading question is defined in Section 142.
  • “Leading questions are those that suggest to the witness the answer that the person posing the question desires. Leading questions are generally prohibited, but they are allowed in the cross-examination of a witness and in the examination of a witness who is declared hostile.” 
• Leading questions are questions that guide or prompt the witness to answer in a specific way, often suggesting the desired answer. 
• While they are generally not allowed during the examination-in-chief (the initial questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness), they are permitted in certain circumstances, such as during cross-examination or when a witness is declared hostile by the party who called them. 
• If the matter in question has been sufficiently proved, the court may grant permission for leading questions during examination-in-chief.
• Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 143 specifies the essentials for asking leading questions.
  • “Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief or in re-examination, except with the permission of the Court.”

The correct answer is option 3Key Points

•  A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is in a condition of anticipation of death, and it relates to the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to their death.
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, addresses the admissibility of dying declarations.
• Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deal with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.
• It says statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person
  • Who is dead, or
  • Who cannot be found, or
  • Who has become incapable of giving evidence, or
  • Whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay

The correct answer is Option 1

Key Points

•  Section 110 of the Evidence Act incorporates the principle that Possession is a prima facie proof of ownership.
• It is to be noted that this principle does not apply when possession is obtained by fraud or force
• According to this section when a person is shown to be in possession of any property, the presumption is that he is the owner of that property.
• If anybody denies his ownership, burden lies on him to prove that he is not the owner of the property.
• Example: A is in possession of a cycle. В claims the cycle as his, В has to prove that he purchased it and burden lies on B.

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

• Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act deals with who may testify.
• 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.
• Explanation. –– A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them. 

The correct answer is Affidavit.

Key Points

• An affidavit is a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.
• It must be signed before an authorized person, such as an oath commissioner or a notary public.
• Affidavits are used in various legal proceedings, including civil and criminal cases, to present facts that the affiant swears to be true.
• They are often required for legal processes like property disputes, name changes, or in support of motions and petitions.

Additional Information

• Notary Public
  • A notary public is an official authorized to perform acts in legal affairs, particularly witnessing signatures on documents.
  • They ensure the authenticity of the signing parties and help prevent fraud.
  • Notaries also administer oaths and affirmations, certify copies of documents, and provide acknowledgments.
• Oath Commissioner
  • An oath commissioner is appointed to administer oaths and affirmations and to certify affidavits.
  • They play a crucial role in ensuring that the contents of the affidavits are true to the best knowledge of the affiant.
• Legal Uses of Affidavits
  • Affidavits are used in court cases as evidence to support claims or defenses.
  • They may be required in various legal transactions, such as real estate deals, to verify identity, residency, or ownership.
  • In family law, affidavits can be used in matters like child custody, divorce, and adoption proceedings.
• Types of Affidavits
  • Common types include affidavits of support, affidavits of residence, and financial affidavits.
  • Each type serves a specific purpose and must comply with the relevant legal standards and requirements.

The correct answer is Option 1

Key Points

•  The constitutional validity of S. 27 of the Art. was challenged in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.
•  It was argued that the said section was ultra vires the Constitution, in as much as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, on the ground that it discriminated between persons in police custody and those not in such custody.
• The SC held that section 27 is an exception of Section 25 and 26 and also it doesn’t violate article 14 of the constitution as article 14 validates a reasonable classification and classification under section 25 and 26.

Additional Information

• Section 27 of the act said that if accused confess anything and it comes to the category of confession, and by this confession, any new facts discovered then that fact can be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. It mainly comes into action when-
• Section 25 -The confession is made in front of the police. 
•  Section 26 -The confession is made in police custody.
• Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events, since every part of the statement, made at the instance of the accused in police custody, must be confirmed by an event of discovery, later on, to be admissible at trial
• In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Supreme Court held that section 27 doesn’t violate Article 20(3)

The correct answer is option 1.Key Points

• Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.
• In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
• The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
• This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.

The correct answer is option 2Key Points

• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, establishes the principle of burden of proof in legal proceedings.
• It states that whoever asserts a legal right or liability based on certain facts must prove the existence of those facts.
• This means that the burden of proving the existence of a fact lies on the party who asserts it.
• Additionally, the section emphasizes that the burden of proof never shifts from the party who initially bears it, regardless of the stage of the legal proceedings. In essence, it is the responsibility of the party making a claim to provide evidence to support that claim throughout the proceedings.

The correct answer is option 2.

Key Points

•  In a criminal case, under the Indian Evidence Act, as well as within the broader legal principles shared by many jurisdictions, the primary burden to prove a fact or the guilt of the accused rests upon the prosecution.
• This concept adheres to the foundational legal principle that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.
• The prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the highest standard of proof in the legal system.
• Moreover, while the initial burden of producing evidence and establishing the crime falls on the prosecution, there can be instances where this burden may shift slightly.
• For example, once the prosecution establishes facts that tend to prove an element of a crime, the defendant might then have the burden to raise a reasonable doubt about these claims, though not necessarily disprove them entirely.
• This dynamic underlines the essence of the adversarial system, wherein both parties—prosecution and defense—play significant roles in presenting and challenging the evidence before the court.

The correct option is  Section 154.

Key Points

• Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, allows for the impeachment of a witness by proof of prior inconsistent statements made by that witness.
• In this case, since the victim is denying the prosecution's case, the Public Prosecutor may seek to impeach the victim's testimony by introducing evidence of any prior statements made by the victim that contradict their current testimony.
• This provision enables the Public Prosecutor to ask leading questions to the victim to establish the contradiction between their current testimony and their previous statements.
• Section 154: Question by party to his own witness.
  1. The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
  2. Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.