Indian Evidence Act, 1872 MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

According to the section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” The courts are concerned with the merit of the statement of a particular witness. They are not concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution: Raja v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del).

As per section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 “Person is presumed to be dead who is unheard of for more than seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him/ her if he/ she had been alive”. It means in the absence of valid death certificate family members will not be able to even touch the money and investment for another minimum seven years. The procedure is also long.

Section 141: Leading Questions – Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question.

Section 142: When they must not be asked – Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination in chief, or in a reexamination, except with the permission of the Court,” The court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.

Section 143: When they may be asked – Leading questions may be asked in cross examination.

Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreters and jurors

1. Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely

1. All witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence.
2. Interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses and
3. Jurors : Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.

2. Nothing in this section shall render it lawful to administer, in a criminal proceeding, an oath or affirmation to the accused person, unless she is examined as a witness for the defense, or necessary to administer to the official interpreter of any court, after he has entered on the execution of the duties of his office, an oath or affirmation that he will faithfully discharge those duties. 

According to Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

Salmond said that “the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning of Legislatures through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.” The legal authority of an enactment is derived from the letter of the law and also its spirit. Other forms of law like custom do not have the letter of law to stand in between the spirit of the law and its judicial application. Hence it is in the case of enacted law that the question of interpretation or construction arises.

As per the section 143 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

The provisions of Section 126 apply to interpreters, and the clerks or servants of barristers pleaders, attorneys and vakils. 

According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, all persons are competent to testify, unless prevented from (a) Understanding the questions or (b) Giving rational answers by reason of –

(i)Tender years, (ii) Extreme old age, (iii) Disease of Body or mind, or (iv) Any other similar cause, (S.118).

A lunatic is competent to testify – unless he is prevented by lunacy from understanding the questions and giving rational answers to them. (S. 118)

“A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party’s previous conduct, allegation, or denial”. In law, the doctrine of estoppels is a legal principle by which a claimant may be prevented from asserting a legal right or depending on a set of facts to support a claim if that claimant has said or done something that contradicts his current claim. 
This doctrine attempts to avoid injustice or harm to one party due to inconsistencies of another party. Although there are several forms of estoppels, doctrine of estoppels generally involves a promise or representation by one party that influences the behavior of the second party, who relies on the veracity of the promise or representation. For example, if a dog breeder agrees to give a customer a free dog, he cannot make a claim for the price of the dog six months later. The doctrine of estoppels prevents him from asserting his otherwise legitimate right to payment for the dog due to the representation that he made to the customer that the dog would be free. 
The rationale behind estoppels is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or Fraud. There are two general types of estoppels: equitable and legal.