CLAT PG question bank

BSA MCQs for CLAT PG

CLAT PG BSA questions 1-23 of 70, with answer keys and explanations covering relevancy, admissions, confessions, electronic evidence, burden of proof, presumptions, witnesses, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

70 questions14 topics1-23 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Accomplice Evidence - Section 138 BSA 20235
  • Burden of Proof - Sections 104-108 BSA 20235
  • Burden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 20235
  • Confession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases5
  • Confessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA5
  • Dying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 20235
  • Electronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement5
  • Estoppel - Sections 121-123 BSA 2023 and Promissory Estoppel5
  • Introduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 18725
  • Oral Evidence and Exclusion by Documentary Evidence - Sections 50, 94-95 BSA5
  • Presumptions under BSA 2023 - Sections 115-1205
  • Privilege under BSA 2023 - Professional Communications and State Privilege5
  • Relevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 20235
  • Witnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 20235
Passage or principleBSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on 1st July 2024, replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), enacted under British colonial rule and drafted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The IEA governed the law of evidence in India for 151 years. The BSA represents India's first comprehensive overhaul of evidence law, modernising it to address technological realities while preserving the fundamental structure of the IEA. The BSA applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court including Courts-martial, but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator. Among the key changes, the BSA redefines 'document' in Section 2(1)(d) to expressly include electronic and digital records, adding the phrase 'or otherwise recorded' and 'by any other means.' The definition of 'evidence' under Section 2(1)(e) now expressly includes statements given electronically as oral evidence and electronic or digital records as documentary evidence. Section 61 of the BSA is newly inserted to specifically address electronic or digital records. Primary evidence under Section 57 BSA now contains seven Explanations dealing with electronic records, including the principle that when an electronic record is stored in multiple files simultaneously or sequentially, each file constitutes primary evidence. Oral and written admissions are now expressly added as categories of secondary evidence in Section 58 BSA. These changes reflect the fundamental shift from paper-based to technology-based evidence systems that characterise contemporary litigation.

Question 1EasyIntroduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 1872

According to the passage, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 replaced which legislation?

  1. A

    The Code of Civil Procedure 1908

  2. B

    The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

  3. C

    The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

  4. D

    The Indian Oaths Act 1969

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The passage states: 'The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023...replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872...enacted under British colonial rule and...governed the law of evidence in India for 151 years.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

Question 2EasyIntroduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 1872

According to the passage, the BSA 2023 does not apply to which proceedings?

  1. A

    Courts-martial proceedings

  2. B

    Affidavits and arbitration proceedings.

  3. C

    High Court proceedings

  4. D

    Sessions Court proceedings

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Affidavits and arbitration proceedings.

The passage states: 'The BSA applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court including Courts-martial, but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

Question 3MediumIntroduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 1872

Section 57 BSA 2023 on primary evidence now contains seven Explanations on electronic records. Which specific principle about storage is mentioned in the passage?

  1. A

    Electronic evidence is always secondary evidence

  2. B

    When an electronic record is stored in multiple files simultaneously or sequentially, each file constitutes primary evidence

  3. C

    Electronic evidence must be printed to become primary evidence

  4. D

    Only the original device contains primary evidence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. When an electronic record is stored in multiple files simultaneously or sequentially, each file constitutes primary evidence

The passage states: 'Section 57 BSA now contains seven Explanations dealing with electronic records, including the principle that when an electronic record is stored in multiple files simultaneously or sequentially, each file constitutes primary evidence.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

Question 4MediumIntroduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 1872

Section 61 BSA 2023 is described in the passage as:

  1. A

    A provision existing in the IEA 1872 that was retained unchanged

  2. B

    A newly inserted provision specifically addressing electronic or digital records, with no equivalent in the IEA 1872

  3. C

    A provision dealing with expert evidence

  4. D

    A provision about confessions in electronic format

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A newly inserted provision specifically addressing electronic or digital records, with no equivalent in the IEA 1872

The passage states: 'Section 61 of the BSA is newly inserted to specifically address electronic or digital records.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

Question 5HardIntroduction to BSA 2023 - Key Changes from IEA 1872

The passage states that BSA Section 58 adds which two new categories to secondary evidence that were not in Section 63 IEA?

  1. A

    Certified copies and mechanical process copies

  2. B

    Oral and written admissions are expressly included as secondary evidence.

  3. C

    Video recordings and audio recordings

  4. D

    Expert reports and scientific evidence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Oral and written admissions are expressly included as secondary evidence.

The passage states: 'Oral and written admissions are now expressly added as categories of secondary evidence in Section 58 BSA.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1-2 / Drive: Topic 1 General Issues LB201

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

A dying declaration, admitted under Section 26(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), is a statement made by a person about the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death. Unlike English law, Indian law does not require the declarant to have been under a belief or expectation of imminent death when making the statement. The admissibility of dying declarations requires only that the death of the declarant has occurred and that the cause of that death is the subject matter of the proceeding. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22), the Supreme Court of India laid down the principal guidelines for evaluating dying declarations: the declaration can be the sole basis of a conviction without corroboration if the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary. As a rule of prudence, courts look for: the mental fitness of the declarant at the time of making the statement, whether the statement is consistent and coherent, whether there are circumstances suggesting tutoring, and whether the declarant had the opportunity to observe the accused. A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate after certifying the declarant's fitness carries greater evidential weight. In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710, the Supreme Court held that while a doctor's certification of fitness is desirable, it is not an absolute legal requirement; the court may look at the entire circumstances to assess fitness. The admissibility of a dying declaration if the declarant survives is different: it would then be treated as a prior statement usable for corroboration under Section 160 BSA.

Question 6EasyDying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 2023

Under Section 26(1) BSA 2023, a dying declaration is a statement about:

  1. A

    Any matter the dying person wishes to communicate

  2. B

    It must relate to the cause or circumstances of the declarant's death.

  3. C

    Events that occurred more than one year before death

  4. D

    Only events witnessed by the dying person

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It must relate to the cause or circumstances of the declarant's death.

The passage states: 'a dying declaration...is a statement made by a person about the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Question 7MediumDying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 2023

According to the passage, how does Indian law on dying declarations differ from English law?

  1. A

    Indian law requires the statement to be in writing

  2. B

    Indian law does not require the declarant to have been under a belief or expectation of imminent death; English law requires such expectation

  3. C

    Indian law allows dying declarations from living persons

  4. D

    Indian law requires corroboration for all dying declarations

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Indian law does not require the declarant to have been under a belief or expectation of imminent death; English law requires such expectation

The passage states: 'Unlike English law, Indian law does not require the declarant to have been under a belief or expectation of imminent death when making the statement.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Question 8MediumDying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 2023

In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court held that a dying declaration:

  1. A

    Always requires corroboration to form the basis of conviction

  2. B

    Can be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration if the court is satisfied it is true and voluntary

  3. C

    Must be recorded only by a Magistrate

  4. D

    Is invalid if the declarant subsequently survived

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Can be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration if the court is satisfied it is true and voluntary

The passage states: 'the declaration can be the sole basis of a conviction without corroboration if the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Question 9HardDying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 2023

In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Supreme Court held regarding doctor's certification of the declarant's fitness:

  1. A

    Medical certification is mandatory and its absence makes the declaration inadmissible

  2. B

    Medical certification is desirable but not an absolute legal requirement; the court may assess fitness from the overall circumstances

  3. C

    Only a government doctor's certification is valid

  4. D

    Medical certification is required only in murder cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Medical certification is desirable but not an absolute legal requirement; the court may assess fitness from the overall circumstances

The passage states: 'In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710, the Supreme Court held that while a doctor's certification of fitness is desirable, it is not an absolute legal requirement.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Question 10HardDying Declaration - Section 26(1) BSA 2023

According to the passage, if the declarant of a dying declaration survives, the declaration:

  1. A

    Becomes automatically inadmissible

  2. B

    Is treated as a prior statement usable for corroboration under Section 160 BSA, not as a dying declaration under Section 26(1) BSA

  3. C

    Becomes stronger evidence because the maker can be cross-examined

  4. D

    Is converted into an admission

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Is treated as a prior statement usable for corroboration under Section 160 BSA, not as a dying declaration under Section 26(1) BSA

The passage states: 'The admissibility of a dying declaration if the declarant survives is different: it would then be treated as a prior statement usable for corroboration under Section 160 BSA.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 26(1) / Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay / Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

The law on electronic evidence in India has undergone significant development through both statutory enactment and judicial interpretation. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in Sections 57, 61, and 63 BSA, provides a comprehensive framework for the admissibility of electronic records. Section 57 BSA now recognises electronic records as primary evidence through seven Explanations, addressing multiple storage copies, records from proper custody, and video recordings. Section 63 BSA (corresponding to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000) requires that for an electronic record to be admissible, a certificate must be provided by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, certifying that the electronic record was produced by the device, that the device was in proper working order, and that the information reproduced matches what was supplied. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, the Supreme Court held that the Section 65B certificate is not merely desirable but is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of electronic evidence; without the certificate, electronic evidence is inadmissible. However, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, a five-judge Constitution Bench refined the law: the certificate is mandatory but it can be produced at any stage of the trial and is not required to be furnished at the earliest opportunity. The court can compel production of the certificate. This two-stage development reflects the growing importance of electronic evidence in modern litigation while maintaining procedural safeguards against tampering.

Question 11EasyElectronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement

Section 63 BSA 2023 requires a certificate for admissibility of electronic records. According to the passage, who must provide this certificate?

  1. A

    The Chief Justice of the High Court

  2. B

    The certificate must come from a responsible person connected with the device or system.

  3. C

    The accused person whose records are in question

  4. D

    Any government employee of the relevant department

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The certificate must come from a responsible person connected with the device or system.

The passage states: 'a certificate must be provided by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, certifying that the electronic record was produced by the device, that the device was in proper working order, and that the information reproduced matches what was supplied.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

Question 12EasyElectronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement

In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court held that the Section 65B certificate is:

  1. A

    Desirable but optional

  2. B

    Mandatory for admissibility of electronic evidence.

  3. C

    Required only in criminal cases

  4. D

    Required only for foreign electronic records

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Mandatory for admissibility of electronic evidence.

The passage states: 'In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, the Supreme Court held that the Section 65B certificate is not merely desirable but is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of electronic evidence; without the certificate, electronic evidence is inadmissible.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

Question 13MediumElectronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement

The Arjun Panditrao Khotkar judgment (2020) refined the Anvar P.V. holding by clarifying that:

  1. A

    The certificate is no longer mandatory

  2. B

    The certificate is mandatory but can be produced at any stage of the trial, not necessarily at the earliest opportunity; the court can compel its production

  3. C

    Only High Courts can admit electronic evidence

  4. D

    The certificate requirement applies only to call records

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The certificate is mandatory but can be produced at any stage of the trial, not necessarily at the earliest opportunity; the court can compel its production

The passage states: 'In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1...the certificate is mandatory but it can be produced at any stage of the trial and is not required to be furnished at the earliest opportunity. The court can compel production of the certificate.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

Question 14MediumElectronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement

Section 57 BSA 2023 recognises electronic records as primary evidence through how many specific Explanations?

  1. A

    Three Explanations

  2. B

    Seven explanations.

  3. C

    Five Explanations

  4. D

    Only one general Explanation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Seven explanations.

The passage states: 'Section 57 BSA now recognises electronic records as primary evidence through seven Explanations, addressing multiple storage copies, records from proper custody, and video recordings.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

Question 15HardElectronic Evidence - Sections 57, 63 BSA and Certificate Requirement

The passage describes the two-stage development (Anvar P.V. then Arjun Panditrao Khotkar) as reflecting:

  1. A

    A trend towards making electronic evidence easier to exclude

  2. B

    The growing importance of electronic evidence in modern litigation while maintaining procedural safeguards against tampering; mandatory certificate requirement with procedural flexibility on timing

  3. C

    A trend away from requiring certificates

  4. D

    The courts' reluctance to deal with technical evidence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The growing importance of electronic evidence in modern litigation while maintaining procedural safeguards against tampering; mandatory certificate requirement with procedural flexibility on timing

The passage states: 'This two-stage development reflects the growing importance of electronic evidence in modern litigation while maintaining procedural safeguards against tampering.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 57, 63 / Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) / Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020)

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Sections 22 to 25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, correspond to Sections 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and together govern the admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings. Section 22 BSA provides that a confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority is inadmissible if the accused believed that by making it he would gain advantage or avoid evil. Section 23 BSA (Section 25 IEA) absolutely bars confession made to a police officer from being proved against the accused. This prohibition was interpreted broadly in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119) to cover even statements made before investigation formally commenced. Section 24 BSA (Section 26 IEA) extends the bar to confessions made while in the custody of a police officer, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. In Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Supreme Court held that custody means any actual restraint of a person's liberty by police, not merely formal arrest. Section 25 BSA (Section 27 IEA) contains the important 'discovery provision': when any fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from a person accused and in police custody, so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67), the Privy Council held that only the portion of the information that distinctly and specifically leads to the discovery of the physical fact is admissible; the rest, including any confession embedded in the statement, remains inadmissible.

Question 16EasyConfessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA

Section 23 BSA 2023 (Section 25 IEA) absolutely bars which type of confession?

  1. A

    Confessions made to Magistrates

  2. B

    Confessions made to police officers from being proved against the accused

  3. C

    Confessions made under intoxication

  4. D

    Confessions made in foreign languages

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Confessions made to police officers from being proved against the accused

The passage states: 'Section 23 BSA (Section 25 IEA) absolutely bars confession made to a police officer from being proved against the accused.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Question 17MediumConfessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA

In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the Supreme Court held that Section 23 BSA (Section 25 IEA):

  1. A

    Only covers confessions during formal interrogation

  2. B

    Covers even statements made before investigation formally commenced; the prohibition is wide and applies throughout regardless of the stage of investigation

  3. C

    Does not apply to information given voluntarily to police

  4. D

    Only applies to written statements

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Covers even statements made before investigation formally commenced; the prohibition is wide and applies throughout regardless of the stage of investigation

The passage states: 'In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119) to cover even statements made before investigation formally commenced.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Question 18MediumConfessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA

In Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002), the Supreme Court defined 'custody' for purposes of Section 24 BSA as:

  1. A

    Only formal arrest documented in writing

  2. B

    Any actual restraint of a person's liberty by police, not merely formal arrest

  3. C

    Custody in a police station only

  4. D

    Custody that lasts at least 24 hours

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Any actual restraint of a person's liberty by police, not merely formal arrest

The passage states: 'In Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Supreme Court held that custody means any actual restraint of a person's liberty by police, not merely formal arrest.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Question 19HardConfessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA

The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 pc 67) held regarding Section 25 BSA (Section 27 IEA):

  1. A

    The entire statement becomes admissible once a fact is discovered

  2. B

    Only the information distinctly leading to discovery becomes admissible.

  3. C

    Discovery of any fact makes the entire statement admissible

  4. D

    The discovery provision only applies to murder cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Only the information distinctly leading to discovery becomes admissible.

The passage states: 'the Privy Council held that only the portion of the information that distinctly and specifically leads to the discovery of the physical fact is admissible; the rest, including any confession embedded in the statement, remains inadmissible.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Question 20EasyConfessions and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA

Section 24 BSA bars confessions made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of:

  1. A

    A senior police officer

  2. B

    A Magistrate

  3. C

    Two independent witnesses

  4. D

    A lawyer

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A Magistrate

The passage states: 'Section 24 BSA (Section 26 IEA) extends the bar to confessions made while in the custody of a police officer, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / Aghnoo Nagesia

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Section 138 / Bhuboni Sahu v. The King / Section 119 Illustration (b)

Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, and that a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Section 138 BSA must be read alongside Section 119 Illustration (b) BSA which provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The combined effect is that while there is no legal bar to convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, as a rule of prudence courts require corroboration in material particulars. In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (AIR 1949 PC 257), the Privy Council elaborated the principles applicable to accomplice evidence: an accomplice is likely to be untruthful because he has a motive to minimise his own guilt, he hopes for pardon, and he may be generally dishonest. The corroboration must be independent of the accomplice's testimony and must identify the accused in connection with the crime, not merely confirm that the crime was committed. An important corollary is that one accomplice cannot corroborate another, because tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition. The distinction between an accomplice who becomes an approver (after being granted pardon under Section 343 BNSS 2023) and a co-accused is significant: the co-accused's confession under Section 24 BSA can only be used to corroborate other evidence and cannot form the primary basis of conviction against the other accused.

Question 21EasyAccomplice Evidence - Section 138 BSA 2023

Under Section 138 BSA 2023, an accomplice is described as:

  1. A

    An incompetent witness who cannot testify

  2. B

    A competent witness against an accused person; a conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is not illegal

  3. C

    A witness whose testimony always requires corroboration by law

  4. D

    Only useful for giving information to police, not court testimony

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A competent witness against an accused person; a conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is not illegal

The passage states: 'Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023...provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, and that a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 138 / Bhuboni Sahu v. The King / Section 119 Illustration (b)

Question 22MediumAccomplice Evidence - Section 138 BSA 2023

Section 119 Illustration (b) BSA 2023 creates which type of presumption about accomplice evidence?

  1. A

    A mandatory presumption that the accomplice is always lying

  2. B

    The court may treat accomplice evidence as unsafe unless materially corroborated.

  3. C

    A conclusive presumption of accomplice unreliability

  4. D

    No presumption; accomplice evidence is treated the same as any other witness

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The court may treat accomplice evidence as unsafe unless materially corroborated.

The passage states: 'Section 119 Illustration (b) BSA which provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 138 / Bhuboni Sahu v. The King / Section 119 Illustration (b)

Question 23HardAccomplice Evidence - Section 138 BSA 2023

In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, the Privy Council held that one accomplice cannot corroborate another because:

  1. A

    Two accomplices cancel each other's evidence

  2. B

    Tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition; both accomplices are equally morally untrustworthy by reason of their participation in the crime

  3. C

    Accomplices are prohibited from testifying together

  4. D

    The courts do not permit multiple accomplice witnesses

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition; both accomplices are equally morally untrustworthy by reason of their participation in the crime

The passage states: 'tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition...one accomplice cannot corroborate another.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 138 / Bhuboni Sahu v. The King / Section 119 Illustration (b)

Continue revision

Administrative Law100 questions with explanationsADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations