Indian Evidence Act: 'A' and 'B' were jointly tried for the murder of 'C'. During the trial 'A' said . . . . . . . . "B" and I murdered 'C'. What is the nature of this evidence against 'B'?

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

Not to be taken into consideration as the evidence is hearsay

B

To be taken into consideration as it is direct

C

Not to be taken into consideration as 'A' and 'B' are not being jointly tried

D

To be taken into consideration as 'A' and 'B' are accomplices

A' and 'B' are jointly tried for the murder of 'C'. It is proved that 'A' said, "B and I murdered C" What is the nature of confession against 'B'?

A

Substantive evidence

B

Only corroborate evidence

C

Hearsay evidence

D

None of these

The illustration that, "A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said, 'B and I murdered C'," relates

A

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act

B

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act

C

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act

D

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

X' and 'Y' are jointly tried for murder of 'Z' It is proved that 'X' said - Y and I murdered 'Z' This confession of 'X':

A

May be taken into consideration against Y

B

May not be taken into consideration against Y because confession was made by 'X'

C

May be taken into consideration or not depends upon facts of case

D

None of the above is correct proposition of law

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

A

2 and 3 are incorrect

B

2, 3 and 4 are incorrect

C

1 and 3 are incorrect

D

None of the above is incorrect

Atif is charged with the murder of Khuda Baksh on the 21^st January, 1882. In fact, the murdered person's name was Haidar Baksh, and the date of the murder was the 20^th January, 1882. Atif was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the case of Haidar Baksh. What will the Court infer from this while applying Section 215 Criminal Procedure Code?

A

The Court may infer from these facts that Atif was not misled and that the error in the charge was immaterial

B

The Court may infer from these facts that Atif was misled and that the error in the charge was immaterial

C

The Court may infer from these facts that Atif was misled and that the error in the charge was material

D

None of them

Each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused must be put to the accused specifically, distinctly and separately. In this context, the propositions are
1. Failure to put the material evidence to the accused always vitiates the trial
2. Failure to put the material evidence amounts to a serious irregularity which can not be cured and vitiates the trial, if it has prejudiced the accused.
3. Failure to put the material evidence is not considered to services & is curable if infact no failure of justice has occasioned to the accused.
Now which of the following is correct

A

1 and 2 are correct

B

1 and 3 are correct

C

1, 2 and 3 all are correct

D

2 and 3 all are correct

A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. Confession of B recorded long after the murder allegedly committed in pursuance of a conspiracy would be-

A

Inadmissible in evidence

B

Admissible in evidence under Section 10

C

Admissible in evidence under Section 30

D

Admissible in evidence both under Section 10 and 30

Which of the following among item A and item B are correct?
The right of private defence extends, subject to Section 99, to the causing of death of the assailant or aggressor in the following circumstances:
Item A: For defence of body:
1. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension of an assault to outrage the modesty
2. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that the assailant will kill his children living in another city
3. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence
Item B: For defence of property:
1. While the trespasser is engaged in house breaking during day time.
2. Against a thief who reasonably causes the defender to believe that he would lose his property
3. Against a person who commits mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that grievous Hurt would be a consequence
Select the correct answer:

A

1 and 3 of both items

B

2 and 3 of both items

C

3 alone of both items

D

1 and 2 of both items

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

1 and 2 are true

B

2 and 3 are true

C

3 and 4 are true

D

2 and 4 are true

Indian Evidence Act: 'A' and 'B' were jointly tried for the murder of 'C'. During the trial 'A' said . . . . . . . . "B" and I murdered 'C'. What is the nature of this evidence against 'B'?

Related Questions