Related Questions

If the succeeding Judicial magistrate is of opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is necessary in the interests of justice, he may re-summon any such witness, and after such further examination, cross-examination and reexamination, if any, as he may permit, the witness shall be discharged." This provision is mentioned under section . . . . . . . . of Criminal procedure Code.
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
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:
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?
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.
Which of the following instances of order are decrees?
1. An order rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis for no suit has till then been filed
2. An order refusing leave to institute for accounts of religious endowment
3. An order under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 dismissing an application for the removal of trustee
4. An order on a settlement case under section 104 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act 3 of 1898 as the proceeding is instituted not by a plaint but by an application
5. An order made on an application to the District Court under section 84 (2) of the Madras Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927
Nothing in section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence is provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under:
In prosecution for an offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent is provided in which Section of Indian Evidence Act.
Confession of a co-accused, not required to be an oath and cannot be tested by cross examination
1. Is no evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of Evidence Act and cannot be the foundation of a conviction
2. The only limited use which can be made of a confession of a co-accused is by way of furnishing an additional reason for believing such other evidences as exists
3. It is a very weak type of evidence and is much weaker even than the evidence of an approver .
In the aforesaid propositions:
Assertion (A): Proviso to Section 132, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a facet of rule against self-incrimination.
Reason (R): Policy of Section 132, Indian Evidence Act is to procure evidence for doing justice.
Choose the correct answer: