BSA MCQs for Judiciary

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

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) which was drafted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen and enacted as part of Lord Macaulay's vision for a codified Indian legal framework. The IEA remained in force for 151 years with periodic amendments but could not keep pace with modern technological developments, particularly digital evidence and electronic records. The BSA was part of a trilogy of criminal law reforms: BSA 2023 (replacing IEA), BNS 2023 (replacing IPC 1860), and BNSS 2023 (replacing CrPC 1973). The BSA came into force on 1st July 2024, the same date as BNS and BNSS. 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 (Section 1(2) BSA).

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1

Correct answer: B. Document includes electronic and digital records and other recorded forms.

Section 2(1)(d) BSA 2023: 'Document means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records.' Illustrations expressly include: emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops, smartphones, messages, websites, locational evidence, and voice mail messages stored on digital devices. The IEA 1872 Section 3 did not include 'or otherwise recorded' and did not expressly mention electronic records, though courts had extended the definition through interpretation. This expansion has major consequences: electronic records are now PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE under the BSA (Section 57 BSA), making the Section 65B certificate requirements applicable to them. Compare Section 2(1)(e) BSA: 'evidence' now expressly includes 'statements given electronically' and 'electronic or digital records produced for inspection.'

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 2(1)(d)

Correct answer: B. Section 61 governs admissibility of electronic and digital records.

Section 61 BSA 2023 is highlighted in the Delhi University LB-201 course content as a 'newly inserted provision' dealing with 'Electronic or Digital Record.' The IEA 1872 had no equivalent stand-alone provision; electronic evidence was addressed through amendments to Section 65A and 65B IEA (inserted by the IT Act 2000). Section 61 BSA 2023 consolidates and modernises the framework for electronic evidence. Under the BSA, Section 57 (Primary Evidence) now contains seven Explanations specifically addressing electronic/digital records including: (i) records stored in multiple files simultaneously are each primary evidence; (ii) records obtained from proper custody are primary evidence unless disputed; (iii) video recordings in electronic form are primary evidence; (iv) records stored in multiple storage locations are each primary evidence. The Section 63 BSA (corresponding to Section 65B IEA) certificate requirement for admissibility of electronic evidence continues.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 61

Correct answer: B. Evidence includes electronic witness statements and electronic or digital records.

Section 2(1)(e) BSA 2023: 'Evidence means and includes (i) all statements INCLUDING STATEMENTS GIVEN ELECTRONICALLY which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence; (ii) all documents INCLUDING ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDS produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence.' The IEA 1872 definition (Section 3) did not expressly include electronically given statements as oral evidence. This gap was addressed practically by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Prafulla B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 which allowed testimony by video-conferencing by holding that 'presence' does not require physical presence. The BSA 2023 now codifies this position. Section 50 BSA (Section 55 IEA): oral evidence must in all cases be direct.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 2(1)(e)

Correct answer: B. Facts from which a claimed right, liability, or disability follows are facts in issue.

Section 2(1)(g) BSA 2023 (corresponding to Section 3 IEA): 'Facts in issue means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.' 'Facts in issue' are the ultimate or principal facts the determination of which decides the case: (1) In a criminal case: did the accused commit the actus reus with the required mens rea? (2) In a tort case: did the defendant owe a duty and breach it causing the claimant's loss? Contrast with RELEVANT FACTS: facts which make the existence of facts in issue more or less probable (Sections 3-14 BSA). The distinction is crucial: Section 2 BSA allows evidence of facts in issue AND relevant facts; evidence of other facts is inadmissible. Motive, preparation, conduct, and opportunity are relevant facts (Section 7-8 BSA) but not facts in issue.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 2(1)(g)

Correct answer: B. The court believes it exists or finds it highly probable.

Section 2(1)(i) BSA 2023 (corresponding to Section 3 IEA): 'Proved in relation to a fact means when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it exists, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' This definition contains two limbs: (1) ACTUAL BELIEF: the court actually believes the fact exists; (2) PROBABILITY STANDARD: the court considers its existence so probable that a prudent person would act on that supposition. This is the objective 'prudent man' standard. Compare: DISPROVED (Section 2(1)(c)): the court believes the fact does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man would act on that supposition. NOT PROVED: neither proved nor disproved - the intermediate category of uncertainty. The standard differs between civil cases (balance of probabilities) and criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt), though these standards are judicially imposed rather than stated in the BSA definition itself.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 2(1)(i)

Correct answer: B. It applies to judicial proceedings, including courts-martial, but not affidavits or arbitration.

Section 1(2) BSA 2023: 'It 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.' The exclusion of arbitration proceedings is significant: arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 follow Section 19 of that Act which provides that the arbitral tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act. The BSA therefore continues this exemption. The exclusion of affidavits means that the rules about relevancy, admissibility, and examination do not strictly apply to affidavits though they remain subject to the general law of perjury. COURTS-MARTIAL under the Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act are expressly included, ensuring the BSA governs evidence in military tribunals.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 1(2)

Correct answer: B. Judicially noticed facts and admitted facts.

Section 53 BSA 2023 (Section 58 IEA): 'No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.' This covers: (1) FORMAL ADMISSIONS in pleadings (under CPC Order 8); (2) JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS made at hearing; (3) AGREED FACTS in writing. Section 52 BSA (Section 57 IEA) deals with JUDICIAL NOTICE: facts of which the court 'shall take judicial notice' without proof include: all laws in force in India, the course of proceeding of Parliament, the accession and sign manual of the President, territorial divisions of India, the commencement dates of statutes, the existence of every State, common seals of courts, etc.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 53

Correct answer: B. Courts must exclude irrelevant facts even if no party objects.

Section 3 BSA 2023 (Section 5 IEA): 'Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.' The words 'and of no others' have been interpreted by courts as imposing a positive duty on judges to exclude irrelevant evidence. This is a cornerstone of the BSA's structure: relevancy is the THRESHOLD for admissibility. A fact must first be shown to be relevant (logically connected to facts in issue) under Sections 4-47 BSA before it can be admitted in evidence. The court is a neutral arbiter but has an active duty to police relevancy. As held in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari Singh (2 LR 12 ALL 1 FB), when a judge is in doubt as to admissibility, he should declare in favour of admissibility. Section 141 BSA gives the judge power to ask parties in what manner a proposed fact is relevant before ruling on admissibility.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 3

Correct answer: B. Facts forming part of the same transaction are relevant.

Section 6 BSA 2023 (Section 6 IEA) codifies the doctrine of res gestae (Latin: 'the things done'). It renders relevant facts that form part of the SAME TRANSACTION as the fact in issue. The test for 'same transaction': Unity or proximity of place; Proximity of time; Continuity of actions; Community of purpose. Res gestae is an exception to the hearsay rule: spontaneous exclamations made during or immediately after the transaction are admissible as part of res gestae. Example: In a rape case, if the victim immediately after the incident cried out and named the accused to passersby, that statement is part of the same transaction and admissible under Section 6 BSA. The Supreme Court in Sukhar v. State of U.P. (1999) 9 SCC 507 held that a dying declaration can be part of res gestae. The spontaneity of the statement is the key test: there must be no time for fabrication. Compare: First Information Report (FIR) - the FIR is relevant not as part of res gestae but under Section 7 BSA (effect of facts in issue) and for contradiction/corroboration under Sections 148-160 BSA.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 6

Correct answer: B. Fingerprints on the weapon may be relevant as the effect of handling it.

Section 7 BSA 2023 (Section 7 IEA) renders relevant: facts which are 'the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise' of relevant facts or facts in issue, or which 'constitute the state of things under which they happened' or which afforded 'an opportunity for their occurrence.' Four categories: (1) OCCASION: circumstances in which the event occurred; (2) CAUSE: what brought about the fact in issue; (3) EFFECT: what resulted from the fact in issue (fingerprints, injuries, damage); (4) OPPORTUNITY: what facilitated the occurrence. The Supreme Court's analysis is fact-specific. Under Section 7, the physical evidence at the scene (DNA, fingerprints, injuries) is relevant as 'effects' of the alleged crime. Motive and preparation are separately covered under Section 8 BSA (Section 8 IEA). The 'state of things' category under Section 7 covers background conditions that made the event possible.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 7

Correct answer: B. The tape-recorded conversation is relevant under Section 8 BSA as showing conduct (the accused's conduct in demanding a bribe), and is admissible as electronic evidence under Section 61 BSA read with Section 57 BSA (primary evidence) or Section 63 BSA (certificate requirement for electronic records); the court in Malkani held that it was admissible as direct evidence of the conversations

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157) involved a tape-recorded telephone conversation between Dr Malkani (Coroner of Bombay) and a doctor acting under the supervision of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The recording captured Dr Malkani demanding a bribe. The Supreme Court held: (1) Tape-recorded speech is admissible as evidence of words spoken; (2) It is admissible under Section 8 IEA (Section 8 BSA) as showing CONDUCT; (3) The fact that the recording was made without Malkani's knowledge does not make it inadmissible (the court noted the Indian Telegraph Act provisions but held they did not apply to recording a conversation one is party to); (4) The voice identification test must be satisfied. Under BSA 2023, this evidence would be analysed as: (1) Electronic record = document under Section 2(1)(d) BSA; (2) Relevant under Section 8 BSA as conduct; (3) Admissible under Section 57 (primary) or Section 63 (certificate) BSA.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 8 / R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157)

Correct answer: B. Conduct excludes statements unless they accompany and explain acts.

Section 8 BSA 2023 Explanation 1 (Section 8 IEA Explanation 1): 'The word conduct in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.' This distinction is important for understanding what constitutes 'conduct': Physical acts (running away, destruction of evidence, absconding) = CONDUCT, admissible under Section 8 BSA. Statements alone = NOT conduct under Section 8; must be evaluated under other sections (Section 15-21 BSA for admissions, Sections 22-24 for confessions, Section 26 for dying declarations). The principle: where a statement accompanies and explains an act (e.g., a person while running away says 'I killed him'), both the act and the accompanying statement are admissible under Section 8 BSA as part of the conduct. Illustration (j) to Section 8 IEA (similarly in BSA): a woman who was raped makes a complaint shortly after; the complaint and the circumstances in which it was made are relevant as conduct.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 8 Explanation 1

Correct answer: B. Co-conspirator acts and statements become relevant once conspiracy is reasonably shown.

The conspiracy provision (Section 10 IEA, now within Section 8 BSA) is a unique exception to the general rule that statements are admissible only against the person who made them. It allows statements of one conspirator to be used as evidence against all conspirators. Requirements: (1) 'Reasonable ground to believe' a conspiracy existed (threshold: lower than proof of conspiracy; sufficient that the court finds reasonable grounds); (2) The statement/act must be 'in reference to their common intention'; (3) It must have been made/done AFTER the conspiracy was formed. The 'common intention' requirement is the key: it prevents using statements made before the conspiracy was formed or after the conspiracy ended. Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (AIR 1940 PC 176) is the leading case: the Privy Council held that under Section 10 IEA, things said by conspirators in pursuance of the common intention are admissible against all but the 'in reference to common intention' requirement must be strictly interpreted. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SC) applied this provision extensively in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 8 / Section 10 IEA

Correct answer: B. Facts inconsistent with, or highly probable with, facts in issue.

Section 11 BSA 2023 (Section 11 IEA): 'Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant: (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.' Two categories: (1) INCONSISTENT FACTS: an alibi is the classic example - the fact that the accused was in Delhi when the crime was committed in Mumbai is inconsistent with the fact that the accused committed the crime; both the crime in Mumbai AND the accused's presence in Delhi are not otherwise relevant to each other, but they are inconsistent, making the alibi relevant under Section 11; (2) HIGHLY PROBABLE OR IMPROBABLE: circumstantial evidence that significantly affects the probability of a fact in issue. The standard is HIGH probability or improbability, not any probability. Illustration: 'The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant' (classic alibi illustration in the IEA).

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 11

Correct answer: B. Intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, or ill-will.

Section 14 BSA 2023 (Section 14 IEA): 'Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill will or good will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body is in issue or relevant.' Explanation 1: A fact relevant as showing a state of mind must show that state of mind WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR MATTER IN QUESTION, not a general state. Example: In a case of passing counterfeit coin, the fact that the accused has been previously caught with counterfeit coin is relevant under Section 14 BSA as showing knowledge that he was dealing with counterfeit currency. Illustration (a): A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all to be stolen.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 14

Correct answer: B. Similar fact evidence of previous conduct is admissible to show a particular state of mind (knowledge, intention, system) under Section 14 BSA, but it is not admissible merely to show the accused has a propensity to commit the type of crime charged; the evidence must be used to prove a specific relevant mental element, not simply character

Badri Rai v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 953) addressed similar fact evidence in the context of a murder case. The Supreme Court applied the principle derived from Section 14 IEA (now Section 14 BSA): previous similar acts are admissible only to prove a specific state of mind (knowledge, intention, design, or system), NOT to show general criminal propensity or bad character. The balancing test: the probative value of the previous similar acts must outweigh the prejudicial effect of admitting them. The 'striking similarity' test applies where the similar facts are so distinctively similar to the present offence that they help identify the accused or prove a specific intent. In India, unlike English law, there is no formal 'similar fact evidence rule' as a category; instead, Section 14 BSA provides the framework. Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334 applied the Section 14 IEA framework to terrorist offences where knowledge of explosives was a key element.

Source note: Badri Rai v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 953) / BSA 2023 Section 14

Correct answer: B. Relevant facts must relate to the existence of that right or custom

Section 12 BSA 2023 (Section 13 IEA): 'Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant: (a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence; (b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised, or exercised, or in which its existence was disputed, asserted, or departed from.' Section 12 BSA is frequently applied in: (1) Disputes about easements and rights of way; (2) Disputes about customary rights of communities (e.g., rights to fish in particular waters, rights to graze cattle on common land); (3) Disputes about customary Hindu law practices. Section 13 BSA (Section 14 IEA): facts showing the existence of any course of business or office of a person are relevant when the existence or non-existence of that course of business is relevant or when a question as to whether a particular act was done in accordance with it is in issue.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 12

Correct answer: B. An admission suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

Section 15 BSA 2023 (Section 17 IEA): 'An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.' Key features: (1) ORAL, DOCUMENTARY, OR ELECTRONIC: the BSA now expressly includes electronic admissions (emails, WhatsApp messages, social media posts); (2) 'SUGGESTS ANY INFERENCE': even a partial admission or a statement from which an adverse inference CAN be drawn is an admission; (3) The admission must be made BY A PERSON MENTIONED IN Sections 16-21 BSA (parties to the proceeding, their agents, joint parties, etc.). An admission is a substantive piece of evidence under Section 15 BSA. Unlike confessions (which are only admissible against the maker in criminal cases), admissions can be used in civil cases without the same limitations. The critical distinction from confessions: admissions are not necessarily against penal interest; they can be any statement from which an adverse inference is drawn.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 15

Correct answer: B. Generally against the maker, subject to limited exceptions.

Section 19 BSA 2023 (Section 21 IEA): 'Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, and by or on behalf of, the person who makes them, under the following circumstances: when such admission is of the nature described in Section 31 (statements admissible as dying declarations), when the admission consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, when the admission is relevant otherwise than as an admission.' The general rule: ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST is always admissible against the maker. The general rule on self-serving admissions: a party CANNOT generally use his own previous statement in his favour (res inter alios acta - the statement was made for the party's own benefit). Exceptions to the inadmissibility of self-serving admissions: (1) Dying declarations (Section 26 BSA); (2) Statements showing state of mind or body (Section 14 BSA); (3) Part of the res gestae (Section 6 BSA). The principle prevents parties from engineering self-serving evidence by making favorable statements before litigation.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 19

Correct answer: B. Oral admissions about documents matter only when secondary evidence rules permit.

Section 20 BSA 2023 (Section 22 IEA): 'Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.' This is connected to the BEST EVIDENCE RULE (Sections 56-59 BSA): the contents of a document must be proved by the document itself (primary evidence) or by secondary evidence where permitted. If a party is seeking to prove the contents of a document through oral testimony, this would circumvent the primary evidence rule. Therefore, oral admissions about documentary contents are only relevant when: (1) Secondary evidence is already admissible under Section 60 BSA (document lost, in opposing party's possession, etc.); OR (2) The genuineness (authenticity) of the document itself is disputed (not just its contents). The BSA separately provides in Section 58 (secondary evidence) that ORAL ADMISSIONS and WRITTEN ADMISSIONS are now expressly recognised as categories of secondary evidence, which is an addition not in the IEA.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 20

Correct answer: B. Relevant documents made or authorised by a party can amount to admissions.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla (AIR 1998 SC 1406) arose from the Hawala case (Jain diaries). The Supreme Court held that handwritten entries in private diaries and notebooks of the accused recording financial transactions are admissible as ADMISSIONS under Section 17-21 IEA (now Sections 15-21 BSA) when the entries relate to facts in issue. Key principles: (1) Private records made by a party in ordinary course of business or personal affairs that reflect on contested facts in the proceedings are admissions; (2) The party against whom they are used had opportunity to make or explain the entries; (3) Such documents are not confessions (no judicial authority present, no voluntary admission of criminal offence required) but admissions; (4) However, the evidentiary weight depends on whether the entries are proved to be genuine and made by the party. The court also held that the entries in the Jain diaries were relevant against third parties named in them only under conspiracy provisions (Section 10 IEA / Section 8 BSA), not as admissions.

Source note: CBI v. V.C. Shukla (AIR 1998 SC 1406) / BSA 2023 Sections 15-21

Correct answer: B. Statements by a person whose position or liability is itself in issue may be admissions.

Section 17 BSA 2023 (Section 19 IEA): 'Statements made by persons whose position or liability, it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability, if they were themselves parties to the suit.' This covers the situation where a THIRD PARTY's position or liability is a fact that one party needs to prove against the other. Example: A sues B for money. B's defence is that the money is owned by C (a third party). C's statements about ownership of the money are relevant admissions under Section 17 BSA. Section 18 BSA (Section 20 IEA): Admissions of REFEREES - when parties to a suit agree to refer any matter to a third party, the third party's statements are admissions. These provisions expand the category of persons whose statements qualify as admissions beyond the direct parties to the litigation.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 17

Correct answer: B. While civil admissions can be explained or shown to be erroneous, the position for criminal admissions is more nuanced; however, Section 21 BSA only explicitly addresses civil cases; in criminal cases, any admission short of a confession is treated as part of the prosecution or defence case that the court weighs in totality and is not treated as conclusive against the accused

Section 21 BSA 2023 (Section 23 IEA): 'In civil cases no admission is conclusive proof of the matter admitted, but it may operate as an estoppel under the provisions hereinafter contained.' Key principles: (1) CIVIL CASES: admissions are not conclusive; the maker may show the admission was made under a mistake, misrepresentation, or without full knowledge of the facts; but the admission may operate as an estoppel under Section 121 BSA; (2) CRIMINAL CASES: the maker of an admission in a criminal case can explain it, retract it, or demonstrate it was made under duress or coercion; (3) DIFFERENCE FROM CONFESSION: unlike a confession (which is a complete admission of guilt in criminal proceedings), an admission in criminal cases does not require the same safeguards of Section 22-24 BSA. The evidential weight of an admission depends on the totality of circumstances. Section 21 BSA also means that a party who has made an admission is not estopped from proving its falsity in court, though the court will scrutinise the retraction carefully.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 21