The Burden Of Proof MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for The Burden Of Proof - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

The correct answer is Section 106

Key Points

• Section 106: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
• In this case:
  • Whether ‘A’ had a ticket or not is a fact especially within his own knowledge, not the prosecution’s.
  • The railway authority can prove that he was found traveling without producing a ticket, but ‘A’ alone knows whether he actually had one or not. Hence, the burden of proving he had a valid ticket lies on ‘A’, as per Section 106.

Additional Information

• Section 102: Deals with general rule about burden of proof — lies on the party who would fail if no evidence is given.
• Section 107: Concerns the presumption of a person being alive if alive within the last 30 years.
• Section 108: Applies when a person is not heard of for seven years, then presumption of death arises.

The correct answer is Tukaram V. State of Maharashtra

Key Points

• The Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra case involved the custodial rape of a young tribal girl named Mathura by two policemen.
• The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, stating that Mathura had not raised an alarm and there was no proof of resistance, implying consent.
• This judgment triggered nationwide protests by legal scholars, activists, and women's groups, highlighting the bias and inadequacy in rape laws.
• As a result, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 was enacted, and Section 114-A was inserted in the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 114-A states that if the victim says there was no consent, the court shall presume the absence of consent in cases of custodial rape, gang rape, etc.

Additional Information

• Moginbai v. State of Gujarat – Related to consent in rape, but not the direct reason for insertion of Section 114-A.
• Harpal Singh Case – Concerned a minor’s rape and application of statutory rape provisions, not custodial rape.
• Pramod Mehto Case – Not related to the introduction of Section 114-A.

The correct answer is presumption as to dowry death.

Key Points

• Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1324 deals with the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Supreme Court in this case clarified the conditions under which the court can draw a presumption that the death of a woman was due to dowry harassment if it occurs within 7 years of marriage.
• This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that the death was not caused by dowry-related cruelty or harassment.

Additional Information

• Presumption as to legitimacy: Relates to the assumption that a child born during marriage is legitimate, under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
• Presumption as to rape: Relates to legal presumptions about consent and commission of rape under relevant laws, not discussed in this case.
• Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman: Covered under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which deals with presumption of abetment of suicide if a married woman commits suicide within 7 years of marriage due to cruelty.

The correct answer is dying declaration.

Key Points

• A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, explaining the circumstances that led to their death.
• It is considered valid evidence in a court of law under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The rationale for admitting such statements is the belief that a person on their deathbed would not lie, as they are aware of their impending death.
• The declaration can be oral, written, or even through gestures and signs, provided it is deemed clear and unambiguous.
• A dying declaration does not require corroboration if it is found to be true and reliable by the court.

Additional Information

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The legal framework governing the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, including dying declarations.
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: Allows the admission of a dying declaration as evidence in cases where the cause of death is in question.
• Credibility of a Dying Declaration: Courts assess the reliability of the statement based on the condition of the deceased and the clarity of the declaration.
• Recording of a Dying Declaration: Ideally, a magistrate records the declaration, but it can also be recorded by a doctor or any person present, depending on the situation.
• Exceptions: If a dying declaration is inconsistent or influenced by external factors, it may lose its evidentiary value in court.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key PointsSection 103 of the Indian Evidence Act:  Burden of proof as to particular fact. ––
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustrations
(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
(b) B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

The correct answer is 'Never shifts'.

Key Points

• Burden of introducing evidence under Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the burden of proof and specifies the party who must initially provide evidence to support their claims in a legal dispute.
  • The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party to prove the facts in issue in a case.
  • According to Sec. 102, the burden of introducing evidence never shifts from the party on whom it initially rests. This party must continue to provide sufficient evidence to support their case throughout the trial.
  • This is crucial to ensure that the party making a claim or assertion provides adequate proof before the court, maintaining fairness in the judicial process.

Additional Information

• Shifts only once:
  • This option is incorrect as the burden of introducing evidence does not shift once or at any point during the trial. It remains with the party who initially had it.
• Constantly shifts:
  • This option is incorrect because the burden of introducing evidence does not constantly move between parties. It is fixed with the party responsible for proving their claims.
• Occasionally shifts:
  • This option is incorrect as the burden of introducing evidence does not shift occasionally. The burden remains with the party who has to prove the issue throughout the proceedings.

The correct answer is Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Key Points

• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section specifically deals with the 'burden of proof'.
  • It states that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
  • In essence, the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the fact, not on the person who denies it.

Additional Information

• Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section does not exist in the Indian Evidence Act.
  • It is possible that the reference is either incorrect or misquoted.
• Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section deals with the burden of proof in certain cases.
  • It states 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.
  • While it is related to the burden of proof, it is not the primary section that defines the concept.
• Section 98 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section deals with evidence as to the application of language to one of two sets of facts, to show which of the two it was intended to apply to.
  • It is unrelated to the burden of proof concept.

The correct answer is 'Sec. 113B'

Key Points

• Presumption as to dowry death under Sec. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically addresses the presumption of dowry death.
  • This section states that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
  • This presumption is crucial in dowry death cases, as it shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, making it easier for the prosecution to establish the offense.

Additional Information

• Sec. 113A:
  • Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
  • It states that if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or his relatives had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives.
• Sec. 113:
  • Section 113 does not exist in the Indian Evidence Act. The correct sections are 113A and 113B, which pertain to specific presumptions related to dowry deaths and abetment of suicide, respectively.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect as the correct presumption regarding dowry death is explicitly mentioned in Sec. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key PointsSection 112 of the Indian Evidence Act:
Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy. ––
The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.

The correct answer is within seven years of her marriage

Key Points

• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman in certain circumstances.
• If a woman commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, and it is shown that her husband or his relatives subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide was abetment by the husband or his relatives.
• The woman must have committed suicide.
• Suicide must have occurred within 7 years of marriage.
• There must be evidence of cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• The presumption is discretionary, not mandatory - the court may presume, based on facts.