Misc. Of Evidence MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Misc. Of Evidence - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

The correct option is Section 19.

Key Points

• The liability of a person who is one of the parties to the suit depends upon the liability of a stranger to the suit, then an admission by the stranger in respect of his liability shall be an admission on the part of that person who is a party to the suit.
• A person whose position must be proved as against the party to the suit is explained in section 19 of The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
• Explanation:
  • ‘A’ collects rent for ‘B’.
  • ‘B' sues ‘A’ - that ‘A’ has failed to collect rent from ‘C’.
  • C's position must be proved as against the party to the suit.
  • If  'C' deny then 'A' is liable.
  • And if  ‘C’ accept then ‘A' will not be liable.
  • So, ‘C’ can make admission under section 19.
  • Therefore Liability of 'A' depends on whether ‘C’ owed rent to 'B' or not.

The correct option is that a man has a certain reputation, is not a fact.

Key Points

• The term "fact" within the context of the Evidence Act typically refers to an event, circumstance or state of affairs that is capable of being proved or disproved.
• The concept of "fact" is crucial for determining what evidence is admissible in court.
• Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 defines the term 'Fact'.
• According to the section 3:-
  • “Fact” means and includes-
    • Anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses.
    • Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
• Illustrations:-
  1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place is a fact.
  2. That a man heard or saw something is a fact. 
  3. That a man said certain words is a fact.
  4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently uses a particular word in a particular sense or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation is a fact.
  5. That a man has a certain reputation is a fact.
• The definition of “fact” includes two parts.
  • The first part deals with what may be called the “physical facts” while the second part deals with what may be called “psychological facts”.

Explanation- Short title of the Indian evidence act provides for the application of the Indian evidence act and it indicates that the application and extent of Indian evidence act which says –It extends to the whole of India 2 [ 3 ***] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, 4 [other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act (44 & 45 Vict., c. 58)] 5 [the Naval Discipline Act [29 & 30 Vict., 109]; or 6 *** the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934),] 7 [or the Air Force Act (7 Geo. 5, c. 51)] but not to affidavits8 presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator; so statement 2, 3 and 4 are incorrect according to the short title of the Indian evidence act. 

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab (1977)

• In the instant case, the appellant was at first convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by the Sessions Court. However, he filed for an appeal in the High Court and was thereby granted bail throughout the period during which the appeal was pending before the Court. Later, when the matter was heard by the High Court, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was thereby held to serve the sentence of imprisonment for life. However, the appellant surrendered before presenting his petition for special leave to the Supreme Court and has ever since remained in jail for about 4 and a half years. 
• The Court also observed that the appeal was filed in 1974 and was not likely to be heard anytime soon for at least 2 years. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered the petition filed by the appellant and granted him special leave to appeal against his conviction. This in itself shows that the Court believed that the appellant had a prima facie case to be considered and that it would be highly unjust to detain him any longer in jail during the pendency of the hearing of his appeal. 
• Therefore, the Court held that the Supreme Court must release a convict on bail if the Court is not in a position to hear the appeal within a reasonable period of time, unless there are any reasonable grounds to deny bail to the person. 

The correct answer is option 3. Key Points

• Section 1 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides the applicability of the act.
• It extends to the whole of India and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial,  [Other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act  [the Naval Discipline Act [29 & 30 Vict., 109]; or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934  or the Air Force Act.
• ​Exception- But not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator. ​Even section 19 of THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 provides the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 
• In "State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu," commonly known as the "Parliament Attack Case." The Supreme Court in this case clarified that the provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable only in judicial proceedings and not in legislative or administrative inquiries. This decision reinforced the limited scope of the Indian Evidence Act to formal legal proceedings.

The correct answer is Option 4. 

Key Points

• According to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume existence of certain facts: 
• The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

• Illustrations The Court may presume—
  • (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
  • (b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;
  • (c) That a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;
  • (d) That a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;
  • (e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
  • (f) That the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
  • (g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
  • (h) That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
  • (i) That when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to judicial proceedings but not to departmental inquiries, domestic tribunals, or disciplinary proceedings, as these are not considered courts.

Legal Basis:

1. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

   • States that the Act applies to judicial proceedings in courts but not to proceedings before tribunals or inquiries that are not courts of law.

   • Departmental inquiries, disciplinary proceedings, and domestic tribunals are not courts and thus, the Evidence Act does not apply to them.

2. Case Law Precedents:

   • Union of India v. T.R. Varma (1957 SC) – The Supreme Court held that rules of evidence applicable to courts do not apply to departmental inquiries.

   • State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977 SC) – The Supreme Court ruled that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries; only principles of natural justice must be followed.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points Section 3 of Evidence Act: Definition of "Court"

The term "Court" encompasses all Judges and Magistrates, along with any individuals who are legally authorized to take evidence, except for arbitrators.

This inclusive definition ensures that a wide range of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities come under the ambit of a court, provided they have the legal mandate to record or evaluate evidence in proceedings.

• Inclusion of Judges & Magistrates: Clearly identifies traditional judicial officers within the scope of “Court.”
• Legally Authorized to Take Evidence: Broadens the definition to include individuals or tribunals granted legal power to collect and assess testimony or documentation.
• Exclusion of Arbitrators: While arbitrators can resolve disputes, they do not form part of the judicial machinery under the Evidence Act and thus fall outside this definition.
• Statutory Backing: The authority to record evidence must stem from recognized legal provisions, underscoring its formal nature.

Hence, under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, “Court” includes all legally recognized authorities empowered to take evidence, but specifically excludes arbitrators.

The correct option is Both 1 and 2.

Key Points

• The word evidence derived from “Evidera," which is a Latin word meaning is "to ascertain "or "to prove'' or " state of being evident".
• The meaning of the word evidence is described in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Evidence includes all the legal means exclusive of arguments that tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.

Additional Information

• The IEA contained 11 chapters and 167 sections and it came into force from 1 September 1872.
• An act is divided into three parts and eleven chapters:-
• Part 1 (Relevancy of fact):-
  • This part deals with the quality of facts.
  • It consists of two chapters.
  • The first chapter is preliminary and the second chapter is based explicitly on the quality of fact.
• Part 2 (On proof):-
  • A chapter from 3 to 6 is under part 2.
  • Chapter 3 contains the part which need not be proved.
  • The oral evidence is presented in Chapter 4, the documentary evidence in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 deals with the fact when documentary evidence became preferable to oral evidence.
• Part 3 (Production and effect of evidence):-
  • The last part contains chapter 7 to chapter 11.
  • The burden of proof described under part 7 estoppel presented in chapter 8, chapter 9 talked about witnesses.
  • The last chapter is about improper admission and rejection of evidence.

The correct option is An illation drawn from probable reasoning.

Key Points

• Presumptions:-
  • The term “presumption” is defined as an affirmative or non-affirmative illation of a doubtful fact or proposition drawn by following a process of probable reasoning from something substantive.
• Section 4 of Indian Evidence act 1872:-
  • It talks about the law of presumption.
  • It defines “May Presume”, “ Shall Presume” and “Conclusive Proof”.
• May Presume:-
  • Whenever it is required by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may regard the fact as proved until and unless it is disproved or may call for proof of it.
  • The words “may presume” have been used, the court has the discretion to either make a rebuttable presumption or call for confirmatory evidence.
  • It must be noted that the presumption so made is not conclusive or incapable of being rebutted.
• Shall Presume:-
  • The court shall presume a fact, it shall regard the fact as proved until it is disproved.
  • Unlike “may presume”, wherever the words “shall presume” have been used the court has to regard a fact as proved unless it is disproved.
• Conclusive Proof:-
  • When one fact is declared by this Act to be 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 to disprove it.
  • The section provides for non-rebuttable presumptions that is presumptions which are conclusive in nature.