Evidence Module 36 Total points 4/23

Super Test Series (A to Z)

Email *
tejaswa2020@gmail.com

0 of 0 points

Name *
Tejaswa Mishra

University *
NLUJAA

Phone *
9208066700

Evidence Module 36 4 of 23 points

Super Test Series (A to Z)

 1. Queen Empress v. Abdullah is a leading case on 0/1

(a) admission confession

(b) confession

(c) statement

(d) dying declaration

Correct answer

(d) dying declaration

2. Even a "student” may be treated as an expert under Section 45 of 0/1

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was laid down by the Supreme Court
in

(a) Ghoginbhai Hirbhai v. State of Gujarat(1983)

(b) Sankaria v. State of Rajasthan (1978)

(c) Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta & Ors. (1983)

(d) Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana (1984)

Correct answer

(c) Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta & Ors. (1983)

 3. "The statement in order to constitute a 'confession' under the Indian 0/1
Evidence Act, must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate
substantially all facts which constitute the offence. "The above view
was expressed by the Privy Council in which one of the following
cases?

(a) John Makin v. Attorney General

(b) Pakla Narain Swamy v. Emperor

(c) H.H.B. Gill v. King Emperor

(d) Q.E. v. Abdullah

Correct answer

(b) Pakla Narain Swamy v. Emperor

4. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab relates to which of the following? 0/1

(a) Confession

(b) Dying declaration

(c) Entries in the books of account

(d) Relevancy of judgements

Correct answer

(a) Confession
 5. In which one of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that 1/1
confession of co-accused are very weak evidence and no conviction
can be based solely on such confession?

(a) Nathu v. State of U.P.

(b) Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab

(c) Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.

(d) None of the above

6. Which of the following case is not related to the confession ? 0/1

(a) Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor

(b) State of U.P. v. Deonan Upadhyay

(c) State of Bombay v. Kathi Kaloo (

d) T.J. Ponnan v. M.C. Verghese

Correct answer

d) T.J. Ponnan v. M.C. Verghese

 7. In which of the following judgement Supreme Court ruled that 0/1
Section 27 is an exception to Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act ?

(a) Inayatuallah v. State of Maharashtra

(b) Nirmal Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(c) Lachiman Singh v. State

(d) Kottayya v. Emperor

Correct answer

(a) Inayatuallah v. State of Maharashtra

8. Important case related to 'Identification Parade' is 0/1

(a) Ramnathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

(b) Ram Lochan v. State of West Bengal

(c) Queen Empress v. Abdullah

(d) All of these

Correct answer

(a) Ramnathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

 9. The case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor relates to 0/1

(a) Doctrine of estoppel

(b) Accomplice

(c) Dying declaration

(d) Cross examination

Correct answer

(c) Dying declaration

10. Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 is related with 1/1
which topic of the law of evidence?

(a) Confession

(b) Admission

(c) Dying declaration

(d) Estoppel
 11. In which one among the following cases the Supreme Court of 0/1
India said that 'it is not an absolute rule of law that dying declaration
must be corroborated by other evidence before it can be acted upon?

(a) Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharastra

(b) Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor

(c) Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay

(d) Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Correct answer

(c) Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay

12. Which one of the following case is directly related to Section 32(1) 0/1
of the Indian Evidence Act

(a) Pulukuri Kottayya and others v. Emperor

(b) Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor

(c) State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Sinde

(d) Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Correct answer

(b) Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor

 13. The case of Sawal Das v. State of Biharis related to 0/1

(a) Plea of Alibi

(b) Rule of Res-gestae

(c) Rule of Estoppel

(d) Rule of Res-judicata

Correct answer

(b) Rule of Res-gestae

14. Queen v. Abdulla case law is related to. 0/1

(a) Conduct

(b) Consequences

(c) Motive

(d) Preparation

Correct answer

(a) Conduct
 15. The case of Dudhnath Pandey v. State of U.P. is related to 0/1

(a) Res Gestae

(b) Plea of alibi

(c) Admission

(d) Accomplice

Correct answer

(b) Plea of alibi

16. “The Brides in the Bath” case is based on which Section of Indian 0/1
Evidence Act?

(a) Section 16

(b) Section 15

(c) Section 14

(d) Section 11

Correct answer

(b) Section 15
 17. The case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh relates to: 0/1

(a) Privileged communications

(b) Dying declaration

(c) Confession to police officer

(d) Confession of a co-accused

Correct answer

(d) Confession of a co-accused

18. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab is related to which of the 0/1

following?

(a) Leading Question

(b) Secondary Evidence

(c) Confession

(d) Admission

Correct answer

(c) Confession
 19. In which of the following cases constitutionality of Section 27 was 0/1
challenged for violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution?

(a) State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu

(b) Mirza Akbarv. King Emperor

(c) State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya

(d) Queen Emperorv.bdullah

Correct answer

(a) State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu

20. The constitutionality of which Section of the Indian Evidence Act 1/1
was challeged in “State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya" for the violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution?

(a) Section 25

(b) Section 26

(c) Section 27

(d) Section 28

21. "When the previous commission by the accused of an offence is 1/1

relevant, the previous conviction of such person is also a relevant
fact." It is laid down in Section----------- of Evidence Act.

(a) Section 14, Explanation 1

 (b) Section 14, Explanation 2

(c) Section 15

(d) Section 16

22. What number of witnesses will be required for the proof of any 0/1
fact?

(a) No particular number.

(b) At least one eye-witness.

(c) Two witnesses with regard to documents.

(d) One party and one witness.

Correct answer

(d) One party and one witness.

23. In which of the following judgements delivered by the Supreme 0/1

Court in 2015, it was held that "it is imperative if the examination-in-
chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed the same
day"?

(a) Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

(b) Ahmad Shah v. State of Rajasthan

(c) Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana

(d) Inder Singh v. State of Rajathan

Correct answer

(a) Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Forms
 Forms