Two friends A and B were sleeping in a room which was bolted from inside. In the morning, A is found murdered. Under which provision of the Evidence Act, prosecution can claim shifting of burden on B to prove the manner in which the murder took place:

Two friends A and B were sleeping in a room which was bolted from inside. In the morning, A is found murdered. Under which provision of the Evidence Act, prosecution can claim shifting of burden on B to prove the manner in which the murder took place: Correct Answer Section 106 of the Evidence Act

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?
1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.
2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.
3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.
4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) The presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted, if the marriage of the accused and the deceased took place more than 7 years prior to the suicide of the woman and cruelty soon before death is established by the prosecution.
(B) That because Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted to a case, the prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Statement A: The presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act is not attracted if the marriage took place more than seven years prior to the suicide of woman, even if the cruelty is established by prosecution.
Statement B: By the introduction of Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is not required to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Which of the statement is correct?
Hotel Aditya has 10 single AC rooms, 5 double AC rooms and 18 non AC rooms. The fixed monthly rent of hotel is 150,000. The per day maintenance cost is Rs. 100 for double AC room, Rs. 75 for single AC room and Rs. 40 for non AC room. The per day charges are Rs. 600 for double AC room, Rs. 400 for single AC room and Rs. 250 for non AC room. In April 2003, the occupancy rate of non AC room was 50%, 70% of single AC room and 40% of double AC rooms. Find the profit/loss % for that particular month.
Which of the following statements is/are correct in connection with malicious prosecution?
1. Malice is to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
2. Malice is not to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff must prove independently of the acquittal that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause,
4. The plaintiff is not required to prove that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
Select the correct answer using the given below:
Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Propositions are:
1. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
2. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
3. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claim can exceed the plaintiff's claim.
In respect of the aforesaid which is correct:
A' is on trial for the murder of 'C'. There is evidence to show that 'C' was murdered by 'A' and 'B', and that 'B' said-'A' and I murdered 'C'. As against 'A', this evidence is
A is accused of murdering B at his house. A raises the defense that he was not in the town at the time when B is alleged to have been murdered. Under which of the following provisions of the Evidence Act, burden of proof would be on A to prove his defense?
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.