AIBE: Evidence Act carries 8 marks as per the latest bar exam syllabus. Find out the general principle of Evidence along with an exhaustive quiz to map your progress for AIBE.

What is the evidence? 

Once a civil or a criminal case is filed, the facts that are alleged by the parties need to be proved in Court. This is done by providing necessary ‘evidence’ (this word has its origin in the Latin ‘evidere’- ‘to ascertain clearly’). This evidence is presented before the Court at the stage of trial. 

Evidence can include anything,- all records or statements presented to the Court to establish relevant facts – e.g., statements of eye-witnesses, contracts, letters, oral statements, opinion of an expert, bank statements, etc. 

Click Here

Note that India primarily follows an adversarial system where evidence of facts must be provided by the parties to the civil / criminal dispute and the role of the judge is limited to adjudicating on the basis of the evidence provided by the parties. Unlike the inquisitorial system, the judge does not have an active duty to seek out evidence on specific matters. 

Brief overview of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- 

• The Evidence Act (hereinafter, “IEA”) is a compressed codification of certain procedural laws, introduced with the object of enabling courts to correctly ascertain those facts which determine rights and liabilities defined by substantive law. 

• IEA is mainly divided into three parts- 

1. Relevancy of facts; 
2. Facts that need not be proved, and types of evidence; 
3. Production and effect of evidence 

• Tribunals, regulatory bodies, arbitration proceedings, consumer forums, and non- judicial proceedings (like, departmental inquiries, disciplinary proceedings, action under the laws governing any defence-service, etc.) do not follow the rules laid down in IEA. They observe compliance with the rules of natural justice, and may reflect some understanding of the general and basic principles of evidence. 
• IEA applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. 
• IEA works on the following four fundamental principles- 

Best evidence rule 

Deals with the assumption that the quality of the process of arriving at a decision depends upon the nature and character of evidence that is placed before the Court (whereas ‘BRE’ deals with rules which would regulate the process of presenting evidence in a court proceeding). 

Relevance

Indicates that judges are required to consider only relevant evidence to decide whether a disputed fact can be recorded as proved or not. (S. 5, IEA) Evidence must be confined only to the matter/s in issue. 

Admissibility 

When either party proposes to present evidence before the Court, of any fact, the Judge may enquire from such party about the manner in which the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant. The Judge can then, admit such evidence only if he thinks that such fact would be relevant, and not otherwise (S. 136, IEA). 

Appreciation

The process which facilitates a Judge to arrive at a conclusion is called appreciation of evidence. This is a matter left to the Judge’s wisdom and experience, as it’s very difficult to encapsulate appreciation of evidence in statutory form.  

IEA classifies evidence into the following three major types- 

1. Oral and documentary evidence 
2. Circumstantial and hearsay evidence 
3. Primary and secondary evidence 

Who has the responsibility of collecting and presenting evidence before the Court?

In civil cases, it is the responsibility of the parties to the dispute to present evidence before the Court to establish the facts supporting their claims. 

In criminal cases, however, especially in respect of cognizable offences (i.e. where the complainant is entitled to file an FIR), the police is responsible for conducting an investigation (and consequently collecting evidence) after the FIR is filed, which is  presented before the Court during trial of the matter. 

Categories of evidence and proof 

What is the necessity of providing evidence?: 

Evidence must be adduced so that the Court is able to determine the disputed points in the case (called ‘facts–in-issue’ under the Evidence Act). In addition to evidence pertaining to the facts-in-issue, other evidence may be required by a Court to decide a case. 

Usually, the facts over which parties are at dispute cannot be decided in isolation without knowledge of connecting facts or surrounding circumstances. Such facts are known as ‘relevant facts’. 

Which facts are relevant?

Ss.5 – 55, IEA explain the facts which are relevant, and pertaining to which, evidence is admissible. By way of example, evidence of all facts which are per se not in issue but connected to the facts-in-issue and part of the same transaction, is admissible. This includes the motive behind perpetration of a criminal act/omission, preparation therefore, and previous or subsequent conduct; the cause or effects of the facts-in-issue, and the facts that are necessary to explain the relevant facts. (Such facts are known as res gestae in legal jargon.Ss. 6-9, IEA) 

1. 11, IEA contemplates that- 

– If certain facts are inconsistent with any relevant fact, or 

– If such facts make the existence or the non-existence of the relevant fact highly probable or improbable, then such fact/s is considered relevant even if it was irrelevant otherwise. 

What are the two most important types of evidence under the IEA? 

1. Oral evidence 
2. Documentary evidence 

Statements made by witnesses is known as ‘oral evidence’, and any document (including electronic records), stone inscriptions and engravings is known as ‘documentary evidence’. 

Oral Evidence (Ss. 59-60, IEA): 

IEA covers two broad rules regarding oral evidence- 

1. All facts except contents of documents maybe proved by oral evidence 
2. Oral evidence in all cases must be direct, and not hearsay 

Generally, the evidence of a witness is given orally, and falls under ‘oral evidence’. A witness, if unable to speak, may communicate to the Court by signs or by writing. This would also be covered under ‘oral evidence’. Oral evidence is a much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary evidence. But justice can never be administered in many cases without resorting to it. The correct rule is to judge oral evidence with reference to conduct of parties, and the presumptions and probabilities legitimately arising in the case. The real test for accepting or rejecting such evidence is, how consistent is the story of the witness; how well does it stand the test of cross- examination; and how far does it fit in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. Indian Evidence Act embodies the general English rule, that hearsay is no evidence (exceptions to this are dealt with in Ss. 17-39, IEA) Oral evidence should be direct, and must refer to a fact that has been seen, heard or perceived by other senses by a witness. For a person’s evidence to be admissible (as oral evidence) in Court, he must be a competent witness (S. 118, IEA). 

Documentary evidence (Ss. 61 to 65, IEA): 

Includes primary and secondary evidence, wherein the primary evidence is the document itself, and secondary evidence deals with certified copies of the original document. 

Which party has the responsibility (or ‘burden’) of proving his case?

As a general principle, the party claiming relief needs to provide evidence of the facts it has alleged (S. 102 read with S. 101). This general rule,in other words, indicates that 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. 

(S. 3, IEA) When does a Court consider a fact to be: 

• Proved- 

A fact is considered as proven when the Court believes its existence to be so probable that a prudent man oughtto act upon the supposition that it exists. 

• Disproved- 

A fact is said to be disproved when the Court considers its non-existence so probable, that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. 

• Not proved- 

A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. 

‘Fact-in-issue’- 

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. 

• ‘Conclusive proof’- 

When a fact is declared by this Act to be a conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 

It may not be possible to establish a fact with absolute mathematical certainty. However, IEA prescribes a certain degree to which a fact must be established; barring special circumstances (i.e., Ss. 56-58, IEA) 

Which facts need not be proved? 

Facts presumed by law (Ss. 86-88, IEA) [Presumptions – Regarding public documents (Ss. 79-90A), Regarding burden of proof (Ss. 111A, 113A, 113B, 114A)] _ Facts admitted (S. 58, IEA) [Admissions (Ss. 17-23, 31, 70, 167) and Confessions (Ss. 24-30, IEA)] Facts judicially noticeable ( Ss. 56, 57, IEA) 

Presumption

Presumption of law and fact- 

A presumption is an acceptance of a fact as true or existent based upon its strong probability evident from the circumstances. According to English Law, a presumption can be of two kinds – presumption of fact, and presumption of law 

Presumption of Fact- 

Presumption of fact are those presumption about things or events that happen in day to day life, which we accept as true, due to inference drawn logically and naturally by our mind. For example, presumption that a man with blood stained clothes and a knife in his hands has stabbed someone. Or, if X is found in possession of Y’s credit card, X has committed theft. Such presumptions are rebuttable from further evidence. 

Presumption of Law- 

Apart from presumptions of fact, there are situations under which presumptions may or must be made, as per legal rules. Under those situations, courts will make the presumption based on the legal rule. For example, it is a presumption of law that a child below seven years of age is not capable of committing a crime. Or that a person who has not been heard from for seven years is dead. Such presumptions may or may not be rebuttable depending on the law. For example, the presumption that a child below seven years of age is not capable of committing a crime cannot be rebutted.

Law presumes the age of the child as a conclusive proof of his innocence. But the presumption that a person is dead when he is not heard from for 7 years is rebuttable by presenting further evidence that indicates that he was alive. 

The burden of proving a particular fact is always on the party which is alleging the fact. However, there are situations when the Court is entitled to ‘presume’ the existence of certain facts. Courts are entitled to presume facts pertaining to natural events, natural course of human conduct or in the course of business. 

In such cases, proof is not required. IEA deals with presumptions about facts and presumptions of law. Let’s examine some presumptions for reference purposes below: 

• If a person has been accused of having committed any offence in a disturbed area wherein it can be shown that the person had been in a place in such area at a time when firearms and explosives were used from that place to attack or resist the forces that were working to maintain peace and order, such a person would have been presumed to have committed an offence under Section 121, 121A, 122 or 123 of IPC, and criminal conspiracy or abetment of an offence under Section 121 or 123 of IPC. 
• Section 113A indicates towards presumption of an offence with regard to the abetment of suicide of a married woman. 
• Presumption pertaining to the legitimacy of children born out of wedlock is a presumption of law. 
• Law states that a person is always innocent unless proven guilty – However, in the cases of rape, if the woman states that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the Court presumes an absence of consent on the part of the woman. 

Therefore, if it is proven that a person had sexual intercourse with a woman, he is considered to have done it without consent of the woman (and hence guilty of rape), unless he proves otherwise. 

Presumptions that can be made with respect to documents are discussed in Ss. 79 to 85 of the Evidence Act. 

Chapter VI, IEA deals with the exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence – that is, where documentary evidence is available of a particular fact, it will be preferred to oral evidence. Oral evidence will not be considered at all with respect to that fact. When the presumption is conclusive, no further evidence is required to be provided, but when it is rebuttable, the adverse party can present evidence to negate the presumption. 

To conclude, in criminal laws, it is a generally accepted theory that a person is always innocent unless proven guilty. Burden of proof is a concept that has been explained in various fields of law, be it in torts or in criminal laws. However, the basic fact that lies in the foundation of this concept, is that a person who claims the happening of an event or claims a fact, has the burden to prove it. Also, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, that person solely has the burden of proof upon him to prove it (S. 106, IEA).

In torts, there is a concept of Res Ipsa Loquitor; whereas, in criminal law, there is a concept of prima facie. In the former, the plaintiff needs to prove three things which are, that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff that he breached, due to which the plaintiff suffered damage. After proving these, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. However, in the latter, there is a presumption that there is enough evidence to prove the event or the fact. S. 103, IEA deals with the provisions relating to alibi. 

Domestic Violence Act has a similar provision, as that of S. 113A and S. 113B, IEA whereunder the death of a woman under unnatural circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, is presumed to be a dowry death, abetted by the deceased’s husband or relatives thereof. 

Admissions

1. 17, IEA defines an admission as a statement that suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made by: 

– A party to a proceeding or his agent 

– Suitor in representative character 

– Party interested in subject-matter 

– Person from whom interest derived 

The tricky part in admissions relates to the provisions describing confessions (Ss. 24-30, IEA). It basically deals with the provisions that state as to whom can confessions be made to; what sort of confessions may be admitted; and what happens to the confessions that are made under threat, inducement or promise. Confessions made under such influences could be held as self-incriminatory, which is not allowed under the Constitution [Article 20 (3)]. 

A dying declaration is usually held as relevant. Just like motive, intention, ill will, state of mind and body or bodily feelings are important (according to Ss. 8 and 14, IEA); a previous good or a bad character (Ss. 52 to 55, IEA) could be relevant. However, its submission is restricted majorly to criminal cases, and has no bearing on civil cases as such. 

Judicial Notice

The court is entitled to take notice of certain facts and occurrences around the world – for example, it may take note of a comment pertaining to the state of the Indian economy, that is made by the Governor of the RBI in a public speech. Judicial notice is taken of certain matters which are so clearly established, that evidence of their existence is deemed unnecessary. If the court has taken judicial notice of a fact, it need not be proved. 

1. 56 read with S. 57, IEA mean that, if a dispute arises with regard to the facts enumerated in S. 57, IEA, the party which asserts its existence need not produce any evidence to prove the existence of such fact. (See Sections 56 and 57, Indian Evidence Act) 

Privileged Communications (Ss. 122-129, IEA)

In certain relationships communication is grounded on the basis of trust – it is assumed that such communication will not be brought in the public or disclosed in court even if circumstances change in the future and the relationship ceases to exist. Law considers it important to protect the sanctity of such communication. These communications are known as ‘privileged communication’. The content of any communication which is privileged need not be disclosed before a court. Such communications can broadly be categorised in two types- 

1. Privileged from disclosure (privilege may be understood as ‘restricted compellability’ as regards certain witnesses who are competent to depose, and may also be compelled to do so under ordinary circumstances, but are not forced by law to do the same for specific matters which are considered privileged.) 

2. Prohibited from disclosure – This category of privileged communication cannot be disclosed at all in court. 

Section 122, IEA- 

Provides that a married person shall not be compelled to disclose any communication made to him/her during marriage by anyone to whom he/she is or was married (‘privilege of witness’). Such disclosure shall not be permitted, except when the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest consents; or in suits between married persons; or in proceedings where one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other (‘privilege of spouse of the witness’). 

Section 126-129, IEA- 

Explain the law relating to professional communications between clients and legal advisers (or their clerks). However, when such communication is in the form of writing, and made known to others, there’s no ‘confidentiality’ for either the client or the advocate claiming privilege under S. 126, IEA. 

Trial Process 

How is evidence provided in a Court? What are the evidentiary procedures governing deposition in a Court? Examination-in-chief, Cross-examination, Re-examination: 

Examining witnesses follows certain rules prescribed by IEA. Cross-examinations, examination-in-chief, and re-examination are allowed. The testimony of a witness is recorded in the form of answers to questions put to him. This is done to confine the testimony to the facts relevant to the issue/s at hand. This is known as ‘examination’ of a witness. 

To elaborate further, S. 135, IEA must be discussed. It lays down the order of examination of witnesses, and involves two things- 

1. Which party is to examine his witnesses first? (‘right to begin/reply’) 

In criminal cases, the prosecution always begins, but in civil matters, the right to begin is determined by the nature of issues which are framed from the pleadings, and contents of the documents produced by the parties. 

2. In what order are the witnesses to be examined by a party? 

Generally, it is the advocate who enjoys the privilege to determine the order in which witnesses should be produced and examined. However, S. 135 gives the Court, the power to dictate the order of production of witnesses. 

1. Section 137, IEA lays down the following- 

• ‘Examination-in-chief’- Examination of witness by the party who calls him. Questions with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, or those which point towards a particular state of action (called ‘leading questions’) cannot be asked. 

If, however, a witness turns hostile (S. 154, IEA), that is, the witness departs from the statement that was given to the police (the statement given to police during investigation is not admissible as evidence in Court directly, and the witness is therefore required to depose before the court at the time of trial), then, leading questions can be asked. 

• ‘Cross-examination’- Is done by the adverse party, to test the veracity of the statement of the witness and the credibility of the witness in general. S. 146, IEA discusses what sort of questions may be asked during such cross-examination. 

• ‘Re-examination’- Is done subsequent to cross-examination, and by the party which called the witness. This is done only on the facts that have been dealt with in the cross-examination. 

Section 138, IEA lays down an ‘order of examination’, whereunder a witness shall be first examined-in-chief (if the adverse party so desires), then cross-examined, and then, if the party calling the witness so desires, re-examined. 

Section 138 states that examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts only. However, cross-examination need not remain restricted to only those facts testified by the witness in his examination-in-chief. This order prohibits the asking of leading questions which are such questions that suggest the answer which the questioning party wants to receive.

If such leading questions have been objected to by the adverse party, they cannot be asked during cross-examination or re-examination, except with the permission of the Court (S. 142, IEA). Court usually permits leading questions in the cases where the question is in relation to undisputed or proven facts. Leading questions can be asked during cross-examination (S. 143, IEA). Also, questions irrelevant to the issue, or tending to impeach credit of the witness, are allowed in cross-examination (S. 146, IEA). 

Law of Evidence quiz 1 

1.) ‘Facts-in-issue’ are: 

A.) Agreed facts 

B.) Disputed facts 

C.) Issues framed by the Court 

D.) Facts from which the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. 

2.) A has been accused of murdering B. What is a ‘relevant’ fact here?: 

A.) Acts done by A 

B.) Acts done right after the murder 

C.) Acts done right before the murder 

D.) All of the above 

3.) A is guilty of defaming B through libel. What is a relevant fact here?: 

A.) The defaming letters that A wrote to B 

B.) The correspondence sent between the parties before the defaming letter was sent 

C.) The defaming correspondence made available to third parties 

D.) All of the above 

4.) What is a relevant fact in the case where A has been accused of committing a crime and B, C or D could also be held guilty according to the circumstances? 

A.) That B did not commit the crime 

B.) That C was not there at the scene of the crime 

C.) That A was the one present at the crime scene and had the weapon with him 

D.) All of the above 

Law of Evidence quiz 2 

1.) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on: 

A.) that person 

B.) the opposing party 

C.) none of the above 

D.) no specific party, as this depends entirely on the circumstances of each case 

2.) The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person: 

A.) who would win if reliable evidence were given from his side 

B.) who would fail if no evidence were given on either side 

C.) who would fail if substantial evidence were given from his opponent’s side 

D.) none of the above 

3.) The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who: 

A.) wishes the Court to disbelieve in its existence 

B.) wishes the Court to believe in its existence 

C.) would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side 

D.) both b) and c) 

4.) ‘A’, accused of murder, alleges that due to grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. ‘B’ denies this fact. 

Choose the most appropriate option from below: 

A.) The burden of proof must be shared by both ‘A’ and ‘B’ 

B.) The burden of proof is on ‘B’ 

C.) The burden of proof is on prosecution 

D.) The burden of proof is on ‘A’ 

5.) A was in a hurry to board a train. He ran to the railway station. During the train journey, the ticket officer came to check the passengers’ tickets. It was then that A realized that his ticket was missing. A is charged with travelling on the railway without a ticket. On whom will the burden of proof lie?: 

A.) On the railway authorities, as they have to prove that A was travelling without the ticket 

B.) On the passenger, as he did not have the ticket on him 

C.) The passenger should not be charged, as it can be presumed that he had the ticket but lost it because he was in a hurry to board the train 

D.) None of these 

6.)A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land which is in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies to be true. 

Who must prove the facts?: 

A.) A 

B.) B 

C.) An independent investigation authority 

D.) Both a) and c) 

Law of Evidence quiz 3 

1.) Presumption as to powers-of-attorney requires authentication by: 

A.) Any Court 

B.) Magistrate 

C.) Representative of State Government 

D.) A Notary Public 

E.) a), b) and d) 

2.) Presumption as to genuineness of collections of laws and reports of decisions include: 

A.) Every book purporting to be printed under the authority of the Government of any country 

B.) Every book that has been printed in any country, containing laws of that country 

C.) Every book purporting to be published without Government’s authority, purporting to contain reports of Court-decisions and laws 

D.) All of the above 

3.) The presumption will vanish when: 

A.) The accused adduces evidence 

B.) The contrary is proved 

C.) The accused enters into defence 

D.) None of these 

4.) Presumption under S. 114 Illustration (b), IEA deals with: 

A.) Possession of stolen properties 

B.) Evidence of accomplice 

C.) Judicial and official acts 

D.) Common course of business 

5.) Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either a thief or has received the goods, knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for its possession. This presumption is contained in: 

A.) Section 114(a) 

B.) Section 114(b) 

C.) Section 114(c) 

D.) Section 114(d) 

6.) Which of the following legal provisions lay down the presumption that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed?: 

A.) Section 114(c) 

B.) Section 114(d) 

C.) Section 114(e) 

D.) Section 114(f) 

https://www.lawsikho.com/mock_tests/12015/question_paper 1/4 

11/6/2017 LawSikho 

7.) What is the effect of making a rebuttable presumption?: 

A.) The fact can no longer be proved otherwise 

B.) The party in whose favour the presumption is made, is relieved of the initial burden of proof. 

C.) The matter is said to be decided 

D.) Both a) and b) 

8.) An admission can be in which of the following forms?: 

A.) Electronic 

B.) Oral 

C.) Written 

D.) All of the above 

9.) What are the two types of admissions?: 

A.) Judicial and extra-judicial admission 

B.) True and false admissions 

C.) Oral and written admissions 

D.) None of these 

10.) There are some exceptions under which the person making an admission can prove the same. Choose the option that is not such an exception: 

A.) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person or making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under Section 32. 

B.) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable. 

C.) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. 

D.) All of the above are exceptions where the person making the admission can prove the admission. 

11.) A sold B, a horse. B asked if the horse was sound. A said that he should ask C about that. B goes to ask C the same, who said that the horse was okay. What would be considered as an admission in such case?: 

A.) The fact that A asked B to ask C 

B.) The fact that B asked C 

C.) The fact that C said that the horse was okay 

D.) None of the above 

12.) What is the difference between confession and admission?: 

A.) Confessions are made to police officers, while admissions to a Magistrate 

B.) Confessions are made in criminal proceedings, while admissions are made both in criminal and civil proceedings 

C.) Confession is made by the accused, while an admission can be made by anyone during the course of proceeding 

D.) Both c) and d) 

13.) There is evidence to show, that A and B murdered C. A confessed and said, “B and I murdered C.” Would this confession be held against A alone, or could it be used against B as well?: 

A.) It could be used against A and B if they were being jointly tried for murder 

B.) It could be held against A alone 

C.) It could be held against A alone, if he was being tried in isolation and not jointly with B 

D.) t cannot be held against B 

https://www.lawsikho.com/mock_tests/12015/question_paper 2/4 

11/6/2017 LawSikho 

14.) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business, showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day-to-day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. Would A be allowed to prove these statements as relevant facts?: 

A.) No, because a person making an admission cannot prove the same 

B.) Yes, because these statements fall under S. 32(2), IEA 

C.) No, because the evidence shows that the ship was cast away 

D.) a) Yes, because the captain should be given an opportunity to explain his actions 

15.) Under Section 57(1), IEA, the Court shall take judicial notice of: 

A.) All laws in force in India 

B.) All laws including foreign laws 

C.) All laws including foreign laws 

D.) All of the above 

Answers Key of Law of Evidence quiz 3 

1.) A 2.) A 3.) B 4.) B 5.) A 6.) C 7.) B 8.) D 9.) A 10.) D 11.) C 12.) D 13.) A 14.) B 15.) B 

Law of Evidence quiz 4 

1.) Which of the following constitutes exceptions to S. 122, IEA?: 

A.) Acts apart from communication 

B.) Evidence by third person/s 

C.) Waiver of privilege 

D.) All of the above 

2.) Which of the following constitutes exceptions to S. 126, IEA?: 

A.) communications made in furtherance of illegal purpose 

B.) disclosure after death of client 

C.) crime or fraud since employment of the legal practitioner began 

D.) a) and c) 

3.) A agrees to supply B, 500 bags of rice in a month. However, A fails to do so and tells B that he could not supply the rice due to failure of crop. However, A has sold the crop to C who agreed to give A, a higher price for the same. When B starts proceedings against A, A appoints a lawyer, D, and admits his liability in a letter. A clerk at D’s office leaks this letter to X who is B’s lawyer. Will the same be admissible? 

A.) The letter will not be admissible in Court, because it has been obtained by illegal means 

B.) The letter will not be admissible in Court, because it is protected by attorney-client privilege 

C.) The letter will be admissible because it pertains to a relevant fact 

D.) The letter should be made admissible, as it establishes the guilt of A. 

4.) In which of the two fact situations is the communication between the attorney and client not protected from disclosure? 

1. I) A, a client, says to B, an attorney—”I have committed forgery and I wish you to defend me.” 
2. II) A, a client, says to B, an attorney— “I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue.” 

A.) I is protected from disclosure, while II is not 

B.) Neither are protected from disclosure 

C.) Both are protected from disclosure 

D.) II is protected from disclosure, I is not protected from disclosure 

5.) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. Is this entry protected from disclosure?: 

A.) Yes, as it is part of the client-attorney privilege 

B.) Yes, it is protected from disclosure 

C.) No, as the entry was made after the commencement of the employment 

D.) No, as the attorney did not make the entry 

Law of Evidence quiz 5 

1.) What sort of questions can lawfully be put to a witness during cross-examination? 

A.) Question regarding his past character 

B.) Questions that lead him to answer that he is guilty of the crime 

C.) Questions that test his truthfulness with regard to the statements he is making 

D.) Questions regarding his involvement in the crime 

2.) Can the witness be lawfully forced to answer? 

A.) No, it will lead to self-incrimination 

B.) Yes, but only while taking direct oral evidence 

C.) Yes, but only regarding matters relevant to the suit or proceeding 

D.) Yes, but only regarding the relevant facts, and for which he shall not be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture of any kind 

3.) How can a witness refresh his memory under examination? 

A.) By referring to any writing made by himself at the time of transaction 

B.) By referring to someone else’s writing, provided, he knew it to be true while reading it 

C.) By referring to a copy of a document and not the original as such 

D.) All of the above 

4.) Can a witness be summoned to produce a document? 

A.) Yes, if it is in his possession 

B.) No, if there are any objections with regards to its production 

C.) No, if there are any objections with reference to its admissibility 

D.) Yes; if such document is in his possession or power then despite objections, it can be summoned for production. It is the Court which will decide on the objections. 

5.) Does a Judge have the power to ask questions to a witness? 

A.) Yes, he does; provided, it is based on the facts that are relevant to the suit, but have not been proved 

B.) Yes, he does. But he cannot compel the witness to answer 

C.) No, only the counsels of the parties can do so, the Judge can only pronounce the judgement 

D.) Yes, he can do so at any point of time regarding any question, whether relevant or irrelevant, and no one can object to the same, provided his judgement is based on relevant facts. 

E.) e) Both b) and d) 

6.) Examination that’s subsequent to cross-examination of a witness by the party who has called him, is known as: 

A.) Main examination 

B.) Additional examination 

C.) Re-examination 

D.) Re-cross-examination 

7.) What is the meaning of ‘leading question’?: 

A.) The first question that the witness is asked 

B.) The most important question that is asked 

C.) A question that presupposes or suggests an answer 

D.) A question that the first witness is asked 

8.) When is a witness treated as a hostile witness?: 

A.) When the witness does not appear in Court due to prior commitments 

B.) When the prosecution witness states something that is destructive to the prosecution’s case 

C.) When the witness and the complainant do not share a good relationship 

D.) Both a) and b) 

9.) What does one understand by ‘examination-in-chief’?: 

A.) The prosecutor examining the witness 

B.) The witness being examined 

C.) The examination of the first witness 

D.) The examination of a witness by the party which called him/her 

10.) When a fact is stated in examination-in-chief, and there’s no cross-examination on that point, it may be inferred that the other party accepts the truth. What are the exceptions to this rule?: 

A.) where the non-cross examination is done to save time, as indicated by the counsel 

B.) where several witnesses are examined on the same points, all need not be cross-examined 

C.) both a) and b) 

D.) none of the above 

11.) A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he’s called as a witness. This rule is prescribed under: 

A.) S. 138, IEA 

B.) S. 137, IEA 

C.) S. 139, IEA 

D.) S. 146, IEA 

Answer Key for Law of Evidence Quiz 5

1.) C 2.) D 3.) D 4.) D 5.) D 6.) C 7.) C 8.) B 9.) D 10.) C 11.) C 

To know more about the concepts of evidence, please Click Here.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.