BSA MCQs for Judiciary, Page 5

Correct answer: B. Execution must be proved when signature or handwriting is disputed.

Section 64 BSA 2023 (Section 67 IEA): 'If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.' Methods of proving execution/handwriting: (1) Section 42 BSA (opinion of person acquainted with handwriting); (2) Section 39 BSA (expert opinion); (3) Section 73 BSA (court's own comparison of handwriting); (4) Admission by the person alleged to have written it. For ATTESTATION: where a document requires attestation (like wills and mortgages), the attestation must be proved (Section 68-71 BSA corresponding to Sections 68-71 IEA). Exception: documents executed by corporations/companies (sealed documents) are proved by the seal; electronic documents are proved by Section 63 BSA certificate. BSA adds 'electronic and digital records' to the definition of 'document' throughout, so these proof requirements now apply to digital signatures and electronic documents with the necessary adaptations under the IT Act 2000.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 64

Correct answer: B. Section 25 BSA (Section 27 IEA) applies to information received from a person accused of any offence who is in police custody; it is not limited to the main accused and can apply to any accused person in custody; if a co-accused gives information leading to discovery of a relevant fact, that information is admissible under Section 25 BSA to the extent it distinctly relates to the discovered fact

Section 25 BSA 2023 (Section 27 IEA): 'Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.' The phrase 'a person accused of any offence' covers ANY accused person, including co-accused. Practical application: if co-accused A gives information in police custody that leads to discovery of the murder weapon at a particular location, so much of A's information as directly relates to the weapon's location is admissible under Section 25 BSA. The rest of A's statement (including any confession) is inadmissible under Sections 23-24 BSA. Importantly, this discovery evidence is admissible against ALL accused at the trial, but the court must carefully assess its probative value against each accused separately. Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45: the meaning of 'custody' in Section 26 IEA (Section 24 BSA) also applies to Section 27 IEA (Section 25 BSA).

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 25

Correct answer: B. Account-book entries are relevant when they refer to a matter in inquiry.

Section 34 BSA 2023 (Section 34 IEA): 'Entries in books of account including electronic records, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.' Three key elements: (1) BOOKS OF ACCOUNT: records of financial transactions (including electronic accounting systems, digital ledgers, computer databases); (2) REGULARLY KEPT: maintained in the ordinary course of business consistently, not prepared specifically for litigation; (3) RELEVANT TO COURT'S INQUIRY: the entries relate to the matter before the court. LIMITATION: 'shall not alone be sufficient to charge liability' - mere accounting entries cannot by themselves create legal liability; they must be supported by other evidence. BSA 2023 adds 'including electronic records' to Section 34, expanding it to cover computerised accounting systems, ERP systems, digital bank records, etc. The addition of electronic records is practically very important as most business accounting is now done digitally.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 34

Correct answer: B. The court may presume guilt where statutory terrorist or state-offence conditions are proved.

Section 115 BSA 2023 (Section 111A IEA): 'In prosecutions for an offence constituting an act of terrorism or offences against the State referred to in Sections 147, 148, 152 and 153 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, if the accused was present at the scene of the offence or in possession of explosives, arms or any other material connected with the offence, the Court shall presume, unless proved otherwise, that the accused has committed such offence.' This is a MANDATORY PRESUMPTION ('shall presume'): once the prosecution proves the specified circumstances (presence at scene, possession of connected material), the court MUST presume involvement unless the accused proves otherwise. The accused bears the burden of disproving the presumption. This reverse burden is constitutionally valid as held by the Supreme Court in cases under POTA and UAPA as a necessary exception to normal presumption of innocence in cases of grave national security threats. Section 115 BSA corresponds to the IEA provisions inserted after the 2001 Parliament attack to address the evidentiary challenges in terrorism prosecution.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 115

Correct answer: B. Relevancy (Section 3 BSA) is based on logic and probability: whether a fact is rationally connected to a fact in issue so as to make it more or less probable; admissibility is based on strict rules of law: whether the court may permit the evidence even if it is logically relevant; all admissible facts are relevant but not all relevant facts are admissible (some relevant facts may be excluded by specific rules like privilege, confession bars, etc.)

The distinction from the Drive Exam Capsule LED material: RELEVANCY: (1) Based on logic and probability; (2) Described under Sections 3-47 BSA (Sections 5-55 IEA); (3) Declares what is relevant to be proved. ADMISSIBILITY: (1) Not based solely on logic but on strict rules of law; (2) The court can permit evidence only if it is relevant; (3) Relevancy is the THRESHOLD for admissibility. Examples of relevant but inadmissible evidence: (1) A confession to a police officer is relevant (logically connects accused to crime) but inadmissible (Section 23 BSA bars it); (2) A marital communication may be logically relevant but inadmissible (Section 128 BSA privilege); (3) Expert opinion on a matter not requiring expertise may be logically relevant but inadmissible. The relationship: relevancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admissibility. In Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birta (1971 SC), the Supreme Court held that a document procured by improper or illegal means is not barred from admissibility provided its relevance and genuineness are proved.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 3 / Exam Capsule LED

Correct answer: B. Test Identification Parade evidence is relevant under Section 9 BSA as it establishes the identity of persons (accused) whose identity is relevant; ti Parades test whether a witness can identify an unknown person from among several persons; the evidence is used for corroboration of the witness's court identification

Section 9 BSA 2023 (Section 9 IEA) renders relevant: facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant; facts which fix the time or place at which a fact in issue occurred; facts showing the relation of parties. TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE: In Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165, the Supreme Court discussed TI Parade principles: (1) TI Parade is held to test the memory of the witness on the first impression; (2) It should be held at the EARLIEST POSSIBLE opportunity (before the witness sees the accused after the incident); (3) It is an AID TO INVESTIGATION, not a rule of procedure; (4) Purpose: test and STRENGTHEN substantive evidence in court; (5) TI Parade evidence is used for CORROBORATION under Section 160 BSA; (6) If the delay is inordinate and the accused could have been shown to witnesses, the court may not act on such identification. The TI Parade itself is not the substantive evidence; the witness's identification in court is the substantive evidence. TI Parade is used to show that the witness was able to identify the accused shortly after the incident.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 9 / Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

Correct answer: B. In cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive becomes highly significant because: (1) it provides a rational explanation for why the accused would have committed the crime; (2) it strengthens the chain of circumstances; (3) without a proved motive, the court must look for a stronger chain of other circumstances; (4) evidence of motive helps exclude innocent explanations for the accused's conduct

Section 8 BSA 2023 on motive: 'Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.' In CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE cases, motive plays a crucial role as noted in multiple Supreme Court cases: (1) Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45: the court discussed circumstantial evidence and noted that the last-seen theory and chain of circumstances must form a complete chain excluding the innocence of the accused; (2) Hanumant v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343): the Supreme Court laid down the five principles for circumstantial evidence: circumstances must be fully established; consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence; the chain of evidence must be complete. In CBI v. V.C. Shukla (AIR 1998 SC 1406): the court noted that entries in books of account showing financial transactions established motive. The absence of proved motive is not fatal to a prosecution case but it does require the other circumstantial evidence to be stronger. Motive, preparation, and subsequent conduct together form the circumstantial evidence chain.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 8

Correct answer: B. Alibi (Latin: 'elsewhere') is the defence that the accused was at a different place when the crime was committed, making his presence at the crime scene impossible; it is relevant under section 11 BSA as a fact inconsistent with the fact in issue; the burden of proving alibi is on the accused once the prosecution has established a prima facie case; but the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt never shifts

The plea of alibi is based on Section 11 BSA (Section 11 IEA) which renders relevant 'facts inconsistent with any fact in issue.' The fact that the accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed is INCONSISTENT with the fact that the accused committed the crime. BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ALIBI: Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002): (1) The plea of alibi must be considered only AFTER the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the commission of offence by the accused; (2) Once prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, it is then incumbent on the accused to prove his alibi with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the time and place of occurrence; (3) Section 103 BSA (Section 103 IEA): the burden of proving any particular fact lies on the person wishing the court to believe in its existence. The standard: the accused need not prove alibi beyond reasonable doubt; he must prove it to the extent that it creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case or satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 11 / Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

Correct answer: B. The 'last seen theory' is a principle of circumstantial evidence relevant under Section 7 BSA (cause/effect) and Section 8 BSA (conduct): when the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased is subsequently found dead, and the time gap between the last seeing and the death is small, it raises a reasonable inference that the accused caused the death; the onus then shifts to the accused to explain his whereabouts

The last seen theory was analysed in Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45: 'The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.' The theory is part of circumstantial evidence analysis: (1) Relevant under Section 7 BSA as an 'effect' or 'occasion' of the fact in issue; (2) Relevant under Section 8 BSA as showing the accused's conduct; (3) When the accused and deceased were seen together and the deceased is found dead shortly after, there is a strong circumstantial chain. The accused must then provide an explanation under Section 106 BSA (burden of proving a fact within his knowledge lies on him who has that knowledge). The last seen theory alone is insufficient for conviction; it must be corroborated with other circumstances. Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) is the foundational case on the five principles of circumstantial evidence.

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 7, 8 / Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002)

Correct answer: B. Preparation means arranging the means or measures necessary for the offence.

Section 8 BSA 2023 renders relevant facts showing MOTIVE, PREPARATION, and CONDUCT. PREPARATION covers: (1) Acquiring instruments or materials for the crime (buying a weapon before a murder); (2) Reconnaissance of the site (visiting the crime location before the crime); (3) Arrangements to escape (booking a train ticket to flee after the crime); (4) Attempting to create an alibi (arranging for false witnesses); (5) Taking measures to conceal evidence (buying acid to destroy evidence). From Drive material: 'Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of a crime. Preparations on the part of the accused to accomplish the crime charged, or to prevent its discovery, or to aid his escape, or to avert suspicion from himself are relevant on the question of his guilt.' The significance: preparation evidence bridges the gap between MOTIVE (why the accused wanted to commit the crime) and ACTUS REUS (the act itself). Together, motive, preparation, and conduct form the key circumstantial evidence triangle under Section 8 BSA.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 8

Correct answer: B. 'in reference to their common intention' is wider: it includes not just acts done to advance the conspiracy (in furtherance) but any act, statement, or writing that has reference to or relates to the common design, including acts done by a conspirator who later left the conspiracy or about events before a particular conspirator joined; 'in furtherance' would be limited to acts actively advancing the conspiracy

Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) analysed Section 10 IEA (conspiracy evidence provision, now within Section 8 BSA read with Section 61 BNS). The Court held: (1) The phrase 'in reference to their common intention' is WIDER than 'in furtherance of common intention' (the English phrase); (2) It was 'designedly used to give it a wider scope'; (3) This means things said, done or written BY ANY CONSPIRATOR that relate to the common design are admissible against ALL other conspirators; (4) This includes acts by a conspirator before a particular person joined the conspiracy or after a person left the conspiracy, PROVIDED they reference the common intention; (5) LIMIT: once the common intention CEASED TO EXIST, any statement made after is NOT in reference to the common intention; (6) A post-arrest statement made to a police officer is beyond Section 10 as held in Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002). Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (AIR 1940 PC 176): the Privy Council held that the confession made to a Magistrate AFTER the conspiracy ended was not admissible under Section 10.

Source note: Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) / BSA 2023 Section 8

Correct answer: B. The state of mind evidence must be specifically directed at the particular matter in question: a general disposition (the accused is generally angry) is not relevant; but a specific intention or knowledge directed at the same person, property, or transaction as the fact in issue is relevant; example: previous knowledge of the specific dangerous substance in a poisoning case is relevant

Section 13 BSA (Section 14 IEA) Explanation 1: 'Evidence of the existence of any state of mind or body is not relevant, unless it shows that that state of mind or body exists at the time in question, or unless it shows the existence of a particular state of mind during a particular time, of which the state of mind at the time in question is presumably a continuation.' The 'particular matter' requirement ensures that Section 13 BSA is not used to admit general bad character evidence disguised as 'state of mind' evidence. Examples from Section 14 IEA illustrations: (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. The fact that he was found with many other stolen articles is relevant as showing his knowledge that each was stolen. Here the knowledge is SPECIFIC to stolen goods. (b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering a document with false dates. Previous delivery of documents with false dates is relevant as showing that he was familiar with the fraud. Here the knowledge is specific to the fraudulent practice. Contrast: general evidence that A is a dishonest person is NOT relevant under Section 13 BSA as it does not relate to the particular matter.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 13

Correct answer: B. May presume ('discretionary presumption'): the court has discretion to presume the fact or not based on the circumstances; it may presume or decline to presume; shall presume ('mandatory presumption'): the court must presume the fact whenever the triggering conditions are proved; it has no discretion to decline; conclusive proof is the strongest: the court must treat the fact as proved and cannot allow evidence to disprove it

Section 4 BSA 2023 (Section 4 IEA) explains the three levels of presumption: (1) 'MAY PRESUME': 'Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.' DISCRETIONARY: the court can use the presumption or can call for actual proof; the court may decide based on circumstances whether to invoke the presumption. (2) 'SHALL PRESUME': 'Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.' MANDATORY but REBUTTABLE: the court must presume the fact; it stands proved until the opposing party disproves it. (3) 'CONCLUSIVE PROOF': 'When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.' The strongest: IRREBUTTABLE presumption; no evidence to disprove is allowed. Section 116 BSA (legitimacy) is conclusive proof (rebuttable only by proof of non-access). Section 118 BSA (dowry death) is 'shall presume' (mandatory but rebuttable). Section 119 BSA (court may presume) is 'may presume' (discretionary).

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 4

Correct answer: B. Substantive evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact in issue (e.g., a dying declaration under Section 26(1) BSA, direct testimony of an eyewitness); it can form the basis of a court's finding; corroborative evidence strengthens or supports substantive evidence but cannot by itself be the foundation of a finding (e.g., a prior statement under Section 160 BSA used to corroborate testimony, a ti Parade used to corroborate court identification)

The distinction between substantive and corroborative evidence is fundamental to BSA 2023: SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE: (1) Directly proves a fact in issue; (2) Can form the sole basis of a finding if reliable; (3) Examples: eyewitness testimony, dying declarations (Section 26(1) BSA as substantive evidence of the cause of death), documentary evidence, confession before Magistrate; (4) The BSA Notes state: 'Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence.' CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: (1) Supports or strengthens substantive evidence; (2) CANNOT by itself form the basis of a finding (e.g., a prior statement under Section 160 BSA is corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence); (3) TI Parade evidence is used for corroboration; (4) FIR is not substantive evidence but is corroborative evidence (Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 SC): 'The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under Section 157'); (5) Retracted confession can be corroborative evidence.

Source note: BSA 2023 / Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC)

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

While the BSA does not define 'confession,' the Supreme Court and courts have consistently defined it: 'A confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence' (Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, 1966 SC). From the Drive material: 'A statement in order to amount to a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of an incriminating fact, howsoever grave, is not by itself a confession. A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of some fact, which if true, would negatively affect the offence alleged cannot amount to a confession' (Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167). Key distinctions from the Drive material: (1) Confession always goes against the accused; admissions may be used in maker's favour (Section 19 BSA); (2) Confessions made by one of two or more co-accused tried jointly can be taken into consideration against co-accused (Section 24 BSA); admissions by one defendant in a civil suit are no evidence against other defendants; (3) Confession is direct admission of guilt; admission is a statement giving inference about liability.

Source note: BSA 2023 / Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1167)

Correct answer: B. The double test for confession acceptability: (1) first test: whether the confession was perfectly voluntary (free from inducement, threat, promise, coercion, and made of the accused's own free will); (2) second test: whether it is true and trustworthy (consistent with other evidence, without improbabilities, and internally consistent); satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for admissibility

The Shankaria test (from State of Rajasthan v. Shankaria, AIR 1978 SC 1248), as discussed in Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334: 'In Shankaria Case, the court applied double test for deciding the acceptability of a confession: (i) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and (ii) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy. Satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.' The FIRST TEST (VOLUNTARINESS): the confession must be made of the accused's own free will, without any inducement, threat, promise, coercion, or hope of favour. This is tested primarily by how the confession was recorded (Section 183 BNSS magistrate procedure: reading over to accused, asking if he made it voluntarily, asking if he wishes to retract). The SECOND TEST (TRUTH): internal consistency; corroboration with other facts; whether the facts stated in the confession are probable. If the confession passes both tests, it can form the basis of conviction. If it fails the first test, it is inadmissible regardless of truth.

Source note: Mohd. Khalid v. State of WB (2002) / BSA 2023

Correct answer: B. 'distinctly' means the information must exclusively and specifically lead to or identify the discovered fact; the information must be so specific that it makes the discovery possible; vague, general, or broadly applicable information that could lead to multiple possibilities does not satisfy the 'distinctly' requirement; the information must be capable of being mentally isolated from other parts of the statement

Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) interpreted 'distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered': the Privy Council held that the information that 'relates distinctly' to the discovered fact means: (1) The information must SPECIFICALLY identify where the fact is to be found (not a vague direction); (2) The information must EXCLUSIVELY relate to the discovered fact; if the same information could have led to multiple discoveries, the 'distinctly' requirement may not be fully satisfied; (3) The information must be 'that which alone and nothing else makes the discovery possible' (this formulation from the case); (4) The court must surgically EXCISE the admissible portion: only the specific identification of location/method is admissible; confessional parts mixed in the same statement are inadmissible. Example from Pulukuri Kottaya: 'I hid the weapon in the rick of [person] in the village. I will show you if you come.' The specific identification of the location (rick, village, person's property) DISTINCTLY relates to the discovery of the weapon. But 'I stabbed the victim' is not distinctly related to the discovery of the weapon.

Source note: Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) / BSA 2023 Section 25

Correct answer: B. The test is whether the statement directly admits the commission of the offence or substantially admits all the facts constituting the offence; a statement that merely admits incriminating facts but contains an exculpatory explanation is not a confession; a statement that admits a lesser participation without admitting the essential elements of the offence is not a confession

Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1167) is the authoritative case on what constitutes a 'confession.' The accused Veera Ibrahim said: 'I did not ask Mullaji what goods were being loaded in his lorry. Mullaji was only my friend and I was not aware of any of his mala fide activities.' This statement contained an EXCULPATORY assertion (denying knowledge of illegal goods). The Supreme Court held: (1) 'A statement in order to amount to a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence'; (2) 'An admission of an incriminating fact, howsoever grave, is not by itself a confession'; (3) 'A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of some fact, which if true, would negatively affect the offence alleged, cannot amount to a confession'; (4) The accused's statement WAS an admission of incriminating facts (he was in the truck) relevant under Section 21 IEA (Section 19 BSA), but NOT a confession. This distinction matters because confessions to police are inadmissible under Section 23 BSA, but admissions to officials who are not police officers may be admissible.

Source note: Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1167) / BSA 2023

Correct answer: B. Judicial confession is made before a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC); it is recorded after the Magistrate warns the accused that he is not bound to make it and whatever he says may be used against him; it carries greater evidentiary weight; extra-judicial confession is made to any person other than an authorised officer (to a friend, relative, or any person) and is proved by calling that person as a witness; it requires corroboration for conviction and is generally considered weaker evidence

From the Drive material: 'JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS are those which are made to a judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or before the court during committal proceeding or during trial. To prove a judicial confession the person to whom judicial confession is made need not be called as witness. Judicial confessions can be relied as proof of guilt against the accused person if it appears to the court to be voluntary and true. A conviction may be based on judicial confession. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS are those which are made to persons other than those authorised by law to take confession. It may be made to any person or to police during investigation. Extra judicial confessions are proved by calling the person as witness. Extra judicial confession alone cannot be relied. It needs support of other supporting evidence. It is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial confession.' Under BSA 2023: Judicial confessions = confessions recorded under Section 183 BNSS 2023 by a Magistrate; these are the strongest and most reliable confessions. Extra-judicial confessions = confessions made to private individuals; these require corroboration.

Source note: BSA 2023 / BNSS 2023 Section 183

Correct answer: B. If a confession that was originally inadmissible under Section 22 BSA (caused by inducement, threat, or promise) is made again after the impression caused by such inducement has been fully removed, the subsequent confession is relevant and admissible; the court must be satisfied that the taint of the inducement has been fully and completely removed

Section 28 BSA 2023 (Section 29 IEA): 'If such a confession as is referred to in Section 22 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.' This provision recognises that: (1) The original taint of an inducement can be removed; (2) If the accused subsequently confesses freely after the impression of the inducement has been eliminated, that confession is admissible; (3) The court must form an opinion that the impression has been FULLY REMOVED (not partially); (4) Evidence of removal of impression includes: significant time passing, the accused being explicitly told the inducement is withdrawn, the accused receiving independent legal advice, etc. The provision is important because police may first use an improper inducement but then seek to get a valid confession later. Courts scrutinise such cases carefully. Section 30 BSA (Section 31 IEA): Admissions are not conclusive proof but can operate as estoppel. Section 31 BSA: confession of co-accused is only corroborative evidence.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 28

Correct answer: B. 'Immediate presence' of the Magistrate means the Magistrate was actually present at the place where the confession was made and was personally present throughout the recording of the confession; the Magistrate must be the active recorder, not merely nearby; the presence of the Magistrate during the recording provides the safeguard against coercion

Section 24 BSA 2023 (Section 26 IEA): confessions in police custody inadmissible UNLESS 'made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.' The requirement ensures: (1) The Magistrate is personally and actively present; (2) The Magistrate actually administers the warning (that the accused is not bound to confess and whatever he says may be used against him) as required under BNSS 2023 Section 183 recording procedure; (3) The Magistrate observes the accused's demeanour and satisfies himself that the confession is voluntary; (4) The Magistrate signs the confession. The procedure under BNSS 2023 Section 183 (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC): (1) The Magistrate must ask the accused if he was tortured or coerced; (2) The Magistrate must tell the accused he is not bound to confess; (3) The Magistrate must record the confession in the accused's own words; (4) The Magistrate must sign the confession and a certificate confirming voluntary nature. The accused's retraction of such a confession at trial triggers the Shankaria double test.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 24 / BNSS 2023 Section 183

Correct answer: B. The Supreme Court held that where the entire FIR is essentially confessional in nature, the FIR cannot be divided into admissible and inadmissible parts; however, those parts which distinctly relate to facts discovered under Section 27 IEA (Section 25 BSA) and other non-confessional parts (like identification of accused by third parties) are admissible; but the confessional substance itself cannot be used even if split up

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119): The accused Aghnoo Nagesia went to the police station and narrated all the details of the four murders he allegedly committed. The FIR was entirely a confession. The Supreme Court held: (1) The FIR as such is not substantive evidence; it may be used to corroborate (Section 160 BSA) or contradict (Section 148 BSA) the informant IF he is called as a witness; (2) If the accused gives the FIR himself: non-confessional information in the FIR is admissible as evidence of conduct (Section 8 BSA) or as admission (Section 19 BSA); (3) BUT a CONFESSIONAL FIR to a police officer is hit by Section 25 IEA (Section 23 BSA) and cannot be used; (4) The discovery parts (identification of bodies, weapons under Section 25 BSA) are admissible; (5) The Court acquitted Nagesia because the ENTIRE FIR except the discovery portions was a confession; and the discovery portions alone were insufficient for conviction. This is a critical case distinguishing different parts of a police statement.

Source note: Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119)

Correct answer: B. A co-accused's confession is very weak evidence: it does not come within the definition of 'evidence' (not given on oath, not in presence of the other accused, cannot be tested by cross-examination); it can only be taken into consideration alongside other evidence against the co-accused; it cannot alone be the basis of conviction; it is corroborative at best

Section 24 BSA 2023 (Section 30 IEA): 'When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.' From the Drive material (Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B., 2002): 'The confession of a co-accused does not come within the definition of Evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. These are following reasons: (1) It is not required to be given on oath; (2) Nor in the presence of the accused; (3) It cannot be tested by cross-examination.' From Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949 PC): 'Confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type.' The co-accused's confession: (1) Can be TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION (not the same as substantive evidence); (2) Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 159): the confession of a co-accused can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence; conviction CANNOT be based solely on it; (3) It must be supported by other substantive evidence.

Source note: BSA 2023 Section 24 / Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949 PC)

Correct answer: B. The prior statement recorded under Section 161 BNSS (investigation statement) is not substantive evidence; it can only be used to contradict the witness (Section 148 BSA) or corroborate him (Section 160 BSA); if a witness contradicts his Section 161 BNSS statement, his credit is impeached; but the Section 161 BNSS statement itself cannot be used as evidence against the accused; it is not a confession in the sense of Section 23-24 BSA

Section 162 BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 162 CrPC): 'No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it...and shall not be used for any purpose, save for the purpose of contradicting such witness...as provided by Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.' The effect: (1) Section 161 BNSS statements to police during investigation: NOT substantive evidence; CANNOT be used to prove the truth of what the witness said; (2) Can ONLY be used for: (a) CONTRADICTION under Section 148 BSA (to show the witness is saying something different from what he told police); (b) CORROBORATION under Section 160 BSA (if the witness's statement was made before a competent authority). From Aghnoo Nagesia: 'If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.' But a confessional FIR to police is hit by Section 25 BSA (Section 23 BSA).

Source note: BSA 2023 Sections 148, 160 / BNSS 2023 Section 162