Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A statement to become relevant under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as dying declaration should have been made under which of the following circumstances?

A statement to become relevant under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as dying declaration should have been made under which of the following circumstances? Correct Answer It should be in relation to the cause of his death or circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death

Related Questions

The essential conditions for the dying declaration to be relevant include the
1. Statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death.
2. Statement is made by a person as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.
3. Person must have been under expectation of death at the time of making the statement.
Which of the above propositions is/are correct?
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.
A dying declaration is relevant evidence under section 32 of the Evidence Act notwithstanding it being hearsay evidence, because-
Select the incorrect statements:
1. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings.
2. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before a Commissioner appointed by the court for recording evidence
3. The Indian Evidence Act applies to affidavits presented to Courts
4. The Indian Evidence Act applies to judicial proceedings held before all kinds of military courts
Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. The following criteria have been introduced for the appointment of a scientist in a research organization. Candidates: 1) Must be a postgraduate in Mathematics/Physics/Chemistry subject with a minimum of 65% marks 2) Age should not be less than 26 years and not more than 35 years as on 01-01-2018 3) Must have a post-doctoral degree with more than 50% marks 4) Should have a minimum of 3 years of experience in the above fields 5) Should be prepared to be under probation for one year If the candidate satisfies all the criteria other than (3), he may be designated as Project Scientist. If the candidate satisfies all the above criteria other than (3) and (4) he may be referred for the post of Junior Scientist. If the candidate fulfills all the above criteria with 7 years of experience in the relevant fields, he/she can be designated as a Senior Scientist. If the candidate fulfills all the above criteria with 12 years of experience in the relevant field, he/she can be designated as Principal Scientist. Varun's age is 27 years as of 1/1/18, he obtained his bachelor's and master's degree in chemistry with 72% and 76% marks respectively. He also had 4 years of experience in the relevant field and was ready to be under probation for one year of the job. to what position he may be assigned
Consider following facts regarding effect of declaration made under section 34 of Specific Relief Act:-
1. Declaration is binding on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them respectively.
2. Declaration binds all those persons who have knowledge of the suit and knowingly they do not become parties.
Under the Evidence Act facts not otherwise relevant are relevant . . . . . . . .
1. If they are significant
2. If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact
3. If they make the existence or nonexistence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable
Choose correct answer:
The given conditions are imposed by an officer for providing the Travelling Concession to the employees. The employee A. Should have made 2 trips in a 4 calendar years. B. Should have made one trip in 1 calendar year. C. Should have made one trip within the native country, while the other could have been overseas. D. Should have made a trip with maximum of 6 people. E. The total cost of both the trips should not have exceeded Rs. 6 lakhs. In case of employee who satisfies all the other criteria except: I. At (D) above, he/she would get Rs. 4 lakhs as concession. II. At (E) above, he/she would get Rs. 3 lakhs as concession. In the inquiry underneath, data of one employee is given. You need to take one of the accompanying four choices in the light of the data given and the criteria and conditions given above. Shyam, a native of India, along with his wife and 2 children went for vacations within India. He made his first trip in February, 2016 and second one in August 2016. The total expenditure of the trips were four lakhs and forty thousand.