CLAT PG question bank

BSA MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 3

CLAT PG BSA questions 47-70 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 topics47-70 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 Sections 115-120 / Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) / Dukhtar Jahan

Sections 115 to 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 create specific presumptions that shift evidentiary burdens in defined circumstances. Section 116 BSA (Section 112 IEA) creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy: the birth of a child during a valid marriage is conclusive proof that the husband is the father, rebuttable only by showing that the parties had no access to each other when the child could have been conceived. In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987), the Supreme Court held that courts should be inclined to uphold legitimacy unless the facts are so compelling as to necessarily show the child could not have been begotten to the husband. In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365, the Supreme Court held that DNA test results can be used to rebut this presumption, as they represent a scientifically accurate method of determining paternity not available when the original law was enacted. Section 120 BSA (Section 114A IEA) creates a mandatory presumption in prosecutions for rape under Section 64(2) BNS: where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, consent is in issue, and the woman states in evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume absence of consent. Section 117 BSA (Section 113A IEA) provides that the court may presume abetment of suicide if the woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives. Section 118 BSA (Section 113B IEA) creates a mandatory presumption in dowry death cases when cruelty in connection with dowry demand before death is shown.

Question 47MediumPresumptions under BSA 2023 - Sections 115-120

In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015), the Supreme Court held that DNA evidence:

  1. A

    Cannot be used to challenge the Section 116 BSA presumption

  2. B

    Can be used to rebut the Section 116 BSA presumption of legitimacy as DNA testing is a scientifically accurate method not available when the original law was enacted

  3. C

    Automatically establishes illegitimacy

  4. D

    Requires court permission in every case before being considered

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Can be used to rebut the Section 116 BSA presumption of legitimacy as DNA testing is a scientifically accurate method not available when the original law was enacted

The passage states: 'In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365, the Supreme Court held that DNA test results can be used to rebut this presumption, as they represent a scientifically accurate method of determining paternity not available when the original law was enacted.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 115-120 / Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) / Dukhtar Jahan

Question 48MediumPresumptions under BSA 2023 - Sections 115-120

Section 120 BSA 2023 creates a mandatory presumption of absence of consent in rape cases when:

  1. A

    The accused denies the offence

  2. B

    If intercourse is proved and the victim denies consent, absence of consent is presumed.

  3. C

    The case involves a minor victim

  4. D

    Medical evidence confirms sexual intercourse

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. If intercourse is proved and the victim denies consent, absence of consent is presumed.

The passage states: 'Section 120 BSA...creates a mandatory presumption in rape prosecutions: where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the victim states in evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume absence of consent.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 115-120 / Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) / Dukhtar Jahan

Question 49HardPresumptions under BSA 2023 - Sections 115-120

The difference between Section 117 BSA and Section 118 BSA presumptions is that Section 117 is:

  1. A

    Mandatory while Section 118 is discretionary

  2. B

    Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

  3. C

    Applicable to more offences than Section 118

  4. D

    Applicable only to rural areas

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

The passage states: 'Section 117 BSA...the court MAY presume abetment of suicide...Section 118 BSA creates a mandatory presumption in dowry death cases.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 115-120 / Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) / Dukhtar Jahan

Question 50HardPresumptions under BSA 2023 - Sections 115-120

In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987), the Supreme Court held that courts should approach the presumption of legitimacy:

  1. A

    By readily finding illegitimacy to reflect social reality

  2. B

    With inclination to uphold legitimacy unless facts are so compelling as to necessarily show the child could not have been begotten to the husband; strong evidence is required to brand a child illegitimate

  3. C

    By automatically ordering DNA tests in all disputes

  4. D

    By giving equal weight to both the presumption and evidence of non-access

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. With inclination to uphold legitimacy unless facts are so compelling as to necessarily show the child could not have been begotten to the husband; strong evidence is required to brand a child illegitimate

The passage states: 'In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987), the Supreme Court held that courts should be inclined to uphold legitimacy unless the facts are so compelling as to necessarily show the child could not have been begotten to the husband.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 115-120 / Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) / Dukhtar Jahan

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

The distinction between relevancy and admissibility is foundational to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Relevancy, governed by the framework of Sections 3 to 47 BSA, is based on logic and probability: a fact is relevant when it has a rational connection to a fact in issue that makes the existence of the fact in issue more or less probable. Admissibility, on the other hand, is governed by strict rules of law that may exclude even logically relevant facts. A confession made to a police officer may be logically relevant to establishing guilt but is legally inadmissible under Section 23 BSA. A marital communication is relevant but inadmissible under the privilege in Section 128 BSA. Under Section 3 BSA, the words 'and of no others' impose a mandatory duty on courts to exclude evidence of irrelevant facts even if no party objects. Section 6 BSA codifies the doctrine of res gestae: facts so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant. The test of a transaction includes unity or proximity of place, proximity of time, continuity of action, and community of purpose. Res gestae constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule, allowing contemporaneous statements and acts to be admitted as part of the transaction itself. Section 8 BSA renders relevant facts showing motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct. In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157), the Supreme Court held that a tape-recorded telephone conversation constituted contemporaneous conduct and was a relevant fact under Section 8 BSA as res gestae. The test for admissibility of tape recordings requires: relevance to the matters in issue, identification of the voice, and proof of accuracy of the recording by eliminating the possibility of tampering.

Question 51EasyRelevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 2023

According to the passage, the words 'and of no others' in Section 3 BSA impose what duty on courts?

  1. A

    Courts must accept all relevant evidence offered by parties

  2. B

    Courts have a mandatory duty to exclude evidence of irrelevant facts, even without any objection from parties

  3. C

    Courts can exercise discretion in excluding irrelevant evidence

  4. D

    Courts must ask parties whether they object to evidence before excluding it

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Courts have a mandatory duty to exclude evidence of irrelevant facts, even without any objection from parties

The passage states: 'the words and of no others impose a mandatory duty on courts to exclude evidence of irrelevant facts even if no party objects.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

Question 52EasyRelevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 2023

According to the passage, the difference between relevancy and admissibility is that:

  1. A

    Both are based on the same logical principles

  2. B

    Relevancy is based on logic and probability while admissibility is governed by strict rules of law that may exclude even logically relevant facts

  3. C

    Admissibility is broader than relevancy

  4. D

    Relevancy and admissibility are determined only at the time of judgment

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Relevancy is based on logic and probability while admissibility is governed by strict rules of law that may exclude even logically relevant facts

The passage states: 'Relevancy...is based on logic and probability...Admissibility...is governed by strict rules of law that may exclude even logically relevant facts.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

Question 53MediumRelevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 2023

The res gestae doctrine under Section 6 BSA uses which of the following tests to determine what constitutes the 'same transaction'?

  1. A

    Only documents produced contemporaneously with the main event

  2. B

    Unity or proximity of place, proximity of time, continuity of action, and community of purpose

  3. C

    Only verbal statements made at the exact moment of the incident

  4. D

    Physical proximity of witnesses to the incident

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Unity or proximity of place, proximity of time, continuity of action, and community of purpose

The passage states: 'The test of a transaction includes unity or proximity of place, proximity of time, continuity of action, and community of purpose.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

Question 54MediumRelevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 2023

In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the tape-recorded conversation was admissible. What were the three conditions the court identified?

  1. A

    Signed consent of speakers, official recording equipment, and court permission

  2. B

    The voice must be identified, the recording relevant, and the tape proved accurate.

  3. C

    Government surveillance approval, relevant content, and notarisation

  4. D

    Court appointment of a recording officer.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The voice must be identified, the recording relevant, and the tape proved accurate.

The passage states: 'The test for admissibility of tape recordings requires: relevance to the matters in issue, identification of the voice, and proof of accuracy of the recording by eliminating the possibility of tampering.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

Question 55HardRelevancy vs Admissibility and Res Gestae - Sections 3, 6-8 BSA 2023

Why does the passage describe res gestae as an exception to the hearsay rule?

  1. A

    Because res gestae applies only to written statements, not verbal ones

  2. B

    Because it allows contemporaneous statements and acts that would ordinarily be excluded as hearsay to be admitted as part of the same transaction, since their spontaneity and proximity to the events guarantee reliability

  3. C

    Because res gestae requires all statements to be sworn before a magistrate

  4. D

    Because hearsay evidence is generally admissible in India

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Because it allows contemporaneous statements and acts that would ordinarily be excluded as hearsay to be admitted as part of the same transaction, since their spontaneity and proximity to the events guarantee reliability

The passage states: 'Res gestae constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule, allowing contemporaneous statements and acts to be admitted as part of the transaction itself.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 3, 6-8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra / Exam Capsule LED

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

The provisions governing confessions in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 22 to 25, reflect a careful balance between the need to prosecute offenders and the protection of accused persons from coercion. Section 22 BSA excludes confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority when the accused believed it would lead to advantage or avoidance of evil. Section 23 BSA imposes an absolute bar on confessions made to police officers. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the Supreme Court held that where an accused gives a confessional first information report to the police, the entire confessional content is hit by Section 25 IEA (now Section 23 BSA). The Court further held that custody includes constructive custody. Section 25 BSA creates the discovery provision: where a fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused 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 directly and specifically leads to the discovery of the physical fact is admissible; the rest remains inadmissible. The Court articulated that the information must distinctly relate to the fact discovered, and not to the past history or use of the discovered object. In Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1167), the Supreme Court clarified that a statement amounts to a confession only if it directly or substantially admits all the facts constituting the offence; a statement containing an exculpatory assertion, even if it admits incriminating facts, is not a confession.

Question 56MediumConfession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases

Under Section 22 BSA 2023, for a confession to be excluded on grounds of inducement, the inducement must proceed from:

  1. A

    Any person who speaks to the accused before arrest

  2. B

    A person in authority, have reference to the charge, and be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing he would gain advantage or avoid evil by confessing

  3. C

    Solely from police officers during interrogation

  4. D

    Any promise made by any person before or after arrest

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A person in authority, have reference to the charge, and be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing he would gain advantage or avoid evil by confessing

The passage states: 'Section 22 BSA excludes confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority when the accused believed it would lead to advantage or avoidance of evil.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

Question 57MediumConfession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases

In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the Supreme Court held regarding a confessional FIR that:

  1. A

    The FIR can be divided into confessional and non-confessional parts freely

  2. B

    Where the FIR is entirely confessional, its confessional content is hit by Section 23 BSA; only those parts related to discoveries under Section 25 BSA remain admissible

  3. C

    A confessional FIR is always completely admissible as it is the first information

  4. D

    Only the portions recorded by the police are inadmissible

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Where the FIR is entirely confessional, its confessional content is hit by Section 23 BSA; only those parts related to discoveries under Section 25 BSA remain admissible

The passage states: 'In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the Supreme Court held that where an accused gives a confessional first information report to the police, the entire confessional content is hit by Section 25 IEA.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

Question 58HardConfession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases

The Pulukuri Kottaya test for what is admissible under Section 25 BSA (discovery provision) requires that the information:

  1. A

    Must be the entire confession of the accused

  2. B

    Must distinctly relate to the fact thereby discovered; not to the past history or use of the discovered object; only the specific identification leading to discovery is admissible

  3. C

    Must be given by the accused in the presence of his lawyer

  4. D

    Must have been given before the accused was formally arrested

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Must distinctly relate to the fact thereby discovered; not to the past history or use of the discovered object; only the specific identification leading to discovery is admissible

The passage states: 'only the portion of the information that directly and specifically leads to the discovery of the physical fact is admissible; the rest remains inadmissible. The information must distinctly relate to the fact discovered, and not to the past history or use of the discovered object.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

Question 59HardConfession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases

In Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1167), the Supreme Court held that a statement amounts to a confession only if:

  1. A

    It is made to a Magistrate or judge

  2. B

    A confession must substantially admit the facts constituting the offence.

  3. C

    It is made in front of two witnesses

  4. D

    It is given without any legal advice

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A confession must substantially admit the facts constituting the offence.

The passage states: 'In Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra...the Supreme Court clarified that a statement amounts to a confession only if it directly or substantially admits all the facts constituting the offence; a statement containing an exculpatory assertion, even if it admits incriminating facts, is not a confession.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

Question 60EasyConfession and Discovery of Facts - Sections 22-25 BSA and Key Cases

Section 23 BSA 2023 imposes what type of bar on confessions to police officers?

  1. A

    A discretionary bar that courts may override in serious cases

  2. B

    Confession to a police officer is absolutely barred against the accused.

  3. C

    A rebuttable bar that the prosecution can overcome by corroboration

  4. D

    A bar that applies only if the accused was formally arrested at the time

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Confession to a police officer is absolutely barred against the accused.

The passage states: 'Section 23 BSA imposes an absolute bar on confessions made to police officers.' And: 'In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar...the Court...held that where an accused gives a confessional first information report to the police, the entire confessional content is hit by Section 25 IEA.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 22-25 / Aghnoo Nagesia / Pulukuri Kottaya / Veera Ibrahim

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

The allocation of the burden of proof is a central mechanism of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Section 104 BSA establishes the general rule that whoever desires a court to give judgment in their favour must prove the facts they assert. In criminal proceedings, this burden rests invariably on the prosecution, which must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent. In State of Maharashtra v. Vasudev Rama Chandra (AIR 1981 SC 1186), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot take benefit of the evidence of the accused and must stand on its own legs. Section 108 BSA creates a statutory burden on the accused when claiming general exceptions: the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances, and the accused must prove the exception on the balance of probabilities. Section 118 BSA creates a mandatory presumption in dowry death cases: when it is shown that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death. In Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 724, the Supreme Court held that the word 'shown' in Section 113B IEA (Section 118 BSA) means proved on the balance of probabilities. The legitimacy presumption in Section 116 BSA was addressed in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365, where the Supreme Court held that DNA test results can rebut the presumption of legitimacy, representing a departure from the earlier Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1993 SC 2295) position where blood tests could not be ordered. The Court in Dipanwita Roy directed that refusal to undergo DNA testing would enable the court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (h) IEA (Section 119 Illustration (h) BSA).

Question 61EasyBurden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 2023

The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vasudev Rama Chandra (AIR 1981 SC 1186) held that:

  1. A

    The prosecution can supplement its evidence with the accused's own statements

  2. B

    The prosecution cannot take benefit of the evidence of the accused; it must stand on its own legs to prove guilt

  3. C

    The accused must explain all incriminating circumstances

  4. D

    The burden of proof shifts to the accused once a prima facie case is established

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The prosecution cannot take benefit of the evidence of the accused; it must stand on its own legs to prove guilt

The passage states: 'the prosecution cannot take benefit of the evidence of the accused and must stand on its own legs.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

Question 62MediumBurden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 2023

Under Section 108 BSA 2023, when the accused claims a general exception, the court's position is:

  1. A

    The court accepts the exception claim until the prosecution disproves it

  2. B

    Proved on the balance of probabilities.

  3. C

    The court must independently investigate whether the exception applies

  4. D

    The prosecution must disprove the exception beyond reasonable doubt

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Proved on the balance of probabilities.

The passage states: 'Section 108 BSA creates a statutory burden on the accused when claiming general exceptions: the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances, and the accused must prove the exception on the balance of probabilities.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

Question 63MediumBurden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 2023

In Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015), the Supreme Court interpreted 'shown' in the dowry death presumption section to mean:

  1. A

    Proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution

  2. B

    Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

  3. C

    Simply alleged or stated by the prosecution

  4. D

    Corroborated by at least two witnesses

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

The passage states: 'In Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015)...the Supreme Court held that the word shown in Section 113B IEA (Section 118 BSA) means proved on the balance of probabilities.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

Question 64HardBurden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 2023

The Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) decision departed from the earlier Goutam Kundu decision by holding that:

  1. A

    Blood tests are now freely available on demand

  2. B

    DNA test results can rebut the presumption of legitimacy in Section 116 BSA, unlike earlier blood tests; the court also held that refusal to undergo DNA testing enables adverse inference under Section 119 Illustration (h) BSA

  3. C

    Courts can now order any medical test without the parties' consent

  4. D

    The presumption of legitimacy is now absolute and cannot be rebutted

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. DNA test results can rebut the presumption of legitimacy in Section 116 BSA, unlike earlier blood tests; the court also held that refusal to undergo DNA testing enables adverse inference under Section 119 Illustration (h) BSA

The passage states: 'In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015)...the Supreme Court held that DNA test results can rebut the presumption of legitimacy...refusal to undergo DNA testing would enable the court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (h) IEA (Section 119 Illustration (h) BSA).'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

Question 65EasyBurden of Proof and Special Presumptions - Sections 104-120 BSA 2023

Section 118 BSA 2023 creates what type of presumption in dowry death cases?

  1. A

    A discretionary presumption the court may or may not apply

  2. B

    Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

  3. C

    A conclusive presumption that cannot be rebutted at all

  4. D

    A presumption that requires additional corroboration before it can be applied

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Dowry death presumption is mandatory once the foundational facts are proved.

The passage states: 'Section 118 BSA creates a mandatory presumption in dowry death cases...the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 104-120 / Sher Singh / Vijayee Singh / Dipanwita Roy / Goutam Kundu

Passage or principleBSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

The law relating to witnesses under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reflects a nuanced approach to the reliability of different categories of witnesses. Section 138 BSA provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and that a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Section 119 Illustration (b) BSA provides the complementary rule of prudence that the court may presume an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (AIR 1949 PC 257), the Privy Council established that tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition, and therefore one accomplice cannot corroborate another. An approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: reliability and corroboration. Section 157 BSA permits the court, in its discretion, to allow the party who called a witness to cross-examine that witness if the witness turns hostile. In State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad (2002) 9 SCC 626, the Supreme Court held that the request to declare a witness hostile must be made at the appropriate stage, and a request made only after cross-examination was complete was correctly refused by the trial court. Section 139 BSA provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact, establishing that evidence is weighed and not counted. In Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1975 SC 856), the Supreme Court, dealing with an approver's evidence, held that the story given by the approver must implicate the accused in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the rule of caution requiring material corroboration must be constantly kept in mind.

Question 66EasyWitnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 2023

Under Section 138 BSA 2023, a conviction on accomplice evidence without corroboration is:

  1. A

    Always illegal and prohibited

  2. B

    Conviction on uncorroborated accomplice evidence is legal but unsafe as a rule of prudence.

  3. C

    Legal only when the accomplice has been formally pardoned

  4. D

    Legal only in minor offence cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Conviction on uncorroborated accomplice evidence is legal but unsafe as a rule of prudence.

The passage states: 'Section 138 BSA provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and that a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

Question 67MediumWitnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 2023

In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (AIR 1949 pc 257), the Privy Council held that one accomplice cannot corroborate another because:

  1. A

    Accomplices always tell the same story which creates circular confirmation

  2. B

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

  3. C

    The court prefers independent witnesses over accomplices in all cases

  4. D

    Accomplices are only permitted to testify once in any trial

View answer and explanation

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

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

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

Question 68MediumWitnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 2023

An approver's evidence must satisfy a 'double test' as described in the passage. What are these two components?

  1. A

    Confession and corroboration

  2. B

    Approver evidence must be intrinsically reliable and materially corroborated.

  3. C

    Physical evidence and documentary evidence

  4. D

    Direct admission and circumstantial evidence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Approver evidence must be intrinsically reliable and materially corroborated.

The passage states: 'An approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: reliability and corroboration.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

Question 69HardWitnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 2023

In State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad (2002), the Supreme Court addressed when the request to declare a hostile witness should be made. The correct timing is:

  1. A

    Before the cross-examination begins, regardless of what the witness says

  2. B

    At the appropriate stage: ideally at the end of examination-in-chief if the witness gives unfavourable testimony; a request made only after cross-examination is complete can be refused by the trial court

  3. C

    After the defence has completed its case

  4. D

    At any time during the trial at the prosecutor's discretion

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. At the appropriate stage: ideally at the end of examination-in-chief if the witness gives unfavourable testimony; a request made only after cross-examination is complete can be refused by the trial court

The passage states: 'the request to declare a witness hostile must be made at the appropriate stage, and a request made only after cross-examination was complete was correctly refused by the trial court.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

Question 70EasyWitnesses - Hostile Witness, Accomplice, Single Witness - Sections 138, 157, 139 BSA 2023

Section 139 BSA 2023 establishes the principle that 'evidence is weighed and not counted.' This means:

  1. A

    Courts count the number of witnesses to determine which side has more evidence

  2. B

    No particular number of witnesses is required; one credible witness can outweigh the testimony of multiple unreliable witnesses; the quality of evidence matters more than the quantity

  3. C

    Courts prefer documentary evidence over witness testimony in all cases

  4. D

    A minimum of two witnesses is required for any criminal conviction

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No particular number of witnesses is required; one credible witness can outweigh the testimony of multiple unreliable witnesses; the quality of evidence matters more than the quantity

The passage states: 'Section 139 BSA provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact, establishing that evidence is weighed and not counted.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 138-139, 157 / Bhuboni Sahu / State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad / Ravinder Singh

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