1) ‘A’ is tried for the murder of ‘B’ by poisoning.

Is the fact, that

before the death of ‘B’, ‘A’ procured poison similar to that which
was administered to ‘B’ relevant ?

Section 8 (Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct):

 The fact that ‘A’ procured poison similar to the one administered to ‘B’ can be considered
evidence of preparation. Section 8 states that the conduct of any party, which is influ-
enced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, is relevant. The procurement of poison by ‘A’
can be seen as preparation for committing the offense and, therefore, is a relevant fact.

In criminal cases, preparation itself is no crime unless coupled with intention, attempt and com-
pleted act. Section 8 of the Act, provides that acts of preparation are relevant. It says that facts
which show or constitute preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact are relevant. Evidence
tending to show that the accused made preparation to commit a crime, is always admissible.
Preparation only evidences a design or plan to do a certain things as planned.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes great significance in as much as
its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning, Sukhram v. State
of Maharashtra

In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, he must be shown first
to have had an intention to commit the offence, and secondly to have done an act which consti-
tutes the actus reas of a criminal attempt; Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970

It is always not carried out but it is more or less likely to be carried out.

 Probative Force: The passage emphasizes that the probative force (or evidential value) of
preparation and previous attempts is based on the presumption that the accused had formed an
intention to commit the crime, which persisted until they found the power and opportunity to
execute it.

 Types of Preparation: The preparation could involve:

 Accomplishing the Crime: Actions taken to ensure the crime can be successfully com-
mitted.
 Preventing Discovery: Measures to avoid detection after the crime is committed.
 Aiding Escape: Steps to ensure that the criminal can escape and avoid suspicion.

2) The question is whether a horse sold by ‘A’ to ‘B’ is sound.

‘A’ says to ‘B’ go and ask ‘C’, ‘C’ knows all about it. When
asked by ‘B’, ‘C’ says that the horse is not sound. Is the
statement made by ‘C’ admissable in evidence ?

Sec 20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit

3) ‘A’ is accused of theft. During the police custody he indicated the place where the stolen
goods were hidden and the police recovered those goods. Can this information be used
against ‘A’ ?
  In this case, ‘A’ is accused of theft and while in police custody, he indicated the place
where the stolen goods were hidden. The police subsequently recovered the stolen goods
based on this information.
 Section 27 applies here because the information provided by ‘A’ led to the discovery of
the stolen goods. Therefore, the portion of the statement made by ‘A’ that directly relates to
the discovery of the stolen goods can be used as evidence against him.

 However, any other part of the confession that does not lead to the discovery of new facts
cannot be used against him under Sections 25 and 26.

4) The question is whether ‘A’ was the legitimate son of ‘B’ ? Is

the fact ‘A’ was always treated as such by the members of the
family relevant ?

 In this case, the question is whether ‘A’ is the legitimate son of ‘B’.
 The fact that ‘A’ was always treated as the legitimate son of ‘B’ by the members of the
family is relevant under Section 50. This is because the members of the family would have
special means of knowing about the relationship between ‘A’ and ‘B’.
 The opinions and conduct of the family members regarding ‘A's’ status as the legitimate
son of ‘B’ are relevant to proving the existence of that relationship in the eyes of the law.

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the relevance of opin-
ions as to relationships, specifically in cases where the existence of such relationships is in
question. It states:
o When the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship between one person
and another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such rela-
tionship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special
means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.
o Such conduct could include acts and declarations by family members who would
naturally know about the relationship.

5) A’ has declared the value of goods as Rs. 500/- at the time of

consignment. On loss of goods, he is claiming the value of
goods much more than Rs. 500/-. Can he be allowed to take
this stand ?

Relevant Provision:
1. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines the doctrine of estop-
pel. It states that when one person has, by his declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such
belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding be-
tween himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
Application to the Case:
 Declaration by ‘A’: When ‘A’ declared the value of the goods as Rs. 500/- at the time of
consignment, he made a specific representation regarding the value of those goods.
 Reliance by the Carrier: The carrier likely relied on this declared value in determining
the terms of the contract, including the liability in case of loss. The carrier may have as-
sessed the risk and set the transportation charges based on this declared value.
 Estoppel: Under Section 115, ‘A’ is estopped from claiming a higher value for the goods
after their loss because he previously declared their value to be Rs. 500/-. By making this
declaration, ‘A’ caused the carrier to believe that the goods were worth Rs. 500/-, and the
carrier acted upon this belief. Therefore, ‘A’ cannot now contradict this representation by
claiming a higher value.
6) ‘A’ a client says to ‘B’ an attorney “I have committed murder of
‘C’ and I wish you to defend me”. Can this communication be
disclosed by an attorney ?

Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act:

1. General Rule: No barrister, attorney, pleader, or vakil shall be permitted to disclose any
communication made to him by or on behalf of his client in the course of and for the pur-
pose of his professional employment, unless with the client’s express consent.
2. Exceptions:
o Subsection (1): Communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose are
not protected from disclosure.
o Subsection (2): Facts observed by a legal professional showing that a crime or
fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment are not
protected from disclosure.
Application to the Case:
 Confession to Murder: When ‘A’ confesses to ‘B’ that he has committed murder and
wishes to be defended, this communication is made in the course of and for the purpose
of the attorney-client relationship.
 Protection of Communication:
o Not in Furtherance of Illegal Purpose: The confession is not made in further-
ance of an illegal purpose. It is part of seeking legal defense, which is not an ille-
gal purpose. Therefore, this communication is protected under Section 126.
o No Crime Observed in Employment: The provision that allows disclosure if a
crime or fraud is observed during employment does not apply here since the con-
fession itself does not constitute an observation of a crime but rather a statement
made by the client

7) ‘A’ is charged with shooting at ‘B’ with intent to kill him.

Prosecution has proved a fact that ‘A’ had previously shot at
‘B’. Is it relevant ?

Relevant Provisions:
1. Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section addresses the relevancy of
facts showing the existence of a state of mind or intention. It states:
o Facts showing the existence of a motive or preparation for the commission of an
offense, or the fact of any previous conduct that indicates a similar intent or pur-
pose, are relevant.
2. Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the relevancy of
facts that are part of the same transaction. It provides that facts which are so connected
with each other as to form part of the same transaction are relevant.
Application to the Case:
 Previous Shooting: The fact that 'A' had previously shot at 'B' can be relevant under
Section 14 because it may help establish 'A’s' motive or intent to kill 'B'. It provides con-
text about 'A's' state of mind and the nature of his actions towards 'B'.
 Pattern of Behavior: The previous act of shooting can demonstrate a pattern of behav-
ior that supports the prosecution's claim of intent. It helps to show that 'A' had a consis-
tent and possibly hostile intention towards 'B'.
8) ‘A’ is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be
stolen. He wants to prove that he refused to sell them below
market value. Can he do so ?

Application to the Case:

 Refusal to Sell Below Market Value:
o Explanation of Conduct: Under Section 21(3), ‘A’ can prove that he refused to
sell the stolen goods below their market value because this fact is relevant to ex-
plaining his conduct. Although it may be considered an admission, it is being used
to explain or contextualize ‘A’s actions rather than directly to prove or disprove his
knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods.

Section 21 - Proof of Admissions:

(1) Admission Relevant if Deceased:
 What It Means: If a person makes an admission (a statement acknowledging a fact) that
would be relevant between other people even if that person were dead, then the person
can prove this admission.
 Why It Matters: This is useful in cases where a deceased person's statements are being
used to prove a fact in a legal context. The idea is that the statement would still be rele-
vant if the person were no longer alive.
 Example: If A claims that a particular document is genuine, and this claim would be ad-
missible in court if A were dead, then A can prove this claim in court while still alive.
(2) Admission of State of Mind or Body:
 What It Means: An admission about a person's state of mind or body can be proved if it
was made around the time the state existed and is backed up by conduct that makes the
statement credible.
 Why It Matters: This rule ensures that statements about someone's mental or physical
state are admissible if they are made close to the time when the state was true and if
their conduct supports the truth of the statement.
 Example: If A says, "I was feeling anxious" just before an event, and his actions at the
time show anxiety (like pacing nervously), this statement can be proved because it re-
flects his state of mind at that time.
(3) Admission Proved if Relevant Otherwise:
 What It Means: Even if an admission is made by a person, it can be proved if it is rele-
vant for reasons other than just being an admission. Essentially, if the admission helps
explain conduct or is relevant in another way, it can be used in court.
 Why It Matters: This clause allows for the admission to be used to clarify or provide con-
text to other facts, beyond just proving the truth of the admission itself.
 Example: If A is accused of receiving stolen goods and he claims he refused to sell them
below market value, this fact is admissible. It helps explain his conduct and provide con-
text, even though it’s technically an admission.

9) ‘A’ has obtained a decree for the possession of land against

‘B’. B’s son, ‘C’ has murdered ‘A’ in consequence. Is the
existence of decree relevant ?

Relevance of the Decree:

 According to Section 43, the decree obtained by 'A' would generally be irrelevant in a
criminal case involving the murder unless it directly relates to a fact in issue.
 In this scenario, the decree is relevant because it shows the motive behind 'C''s act of
murder. The fact that 'A' obtained a decree against 'B' provides a context and reason for
'C''s criminal behavior.
10) ‘A’ and ‘B’ are jointly tried for the murder of ‘C’. It is proved
that ‘A’ said : “B and I murdered C”. Can the court consider
this statement against ‘B’ ?

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of confessions made by
one person that implicate another person who is being tried jointly for the same offense. Ac-
cording to this section:

Application of Section 30 to the Scenario:

In the scenario provided:
 'A' has obtained a decree for the possession of land against 'B'.
 'C', who is 'B''s son, murders 'A' as a consequence.
To determine the relevance of the decree under Section 30, we need to consider whether 'B'
and 'C' are being tried together for an offense and whether 'B' has made any confession im-
plicating both himself and 'C'

11) ‘A’ wants to prove a will. But both the attesting witnesses to
that will are dead. Advise him.

Relevant Sections of the Indian Evidence Act:

1. Section 68 – Proof of Execution of Document Required by Law to be Attested:
o This section generally mandates that a document (like a will) must be attested by
two or more witnesses. If the will is to be used in evidence, at least one attesting
witness must be called for proof of execution, if they are alive.
2. Section 69 – Proof where no Attesting Witness Found:
o If no attesting witness is alive, Section 69 comes into play. According to this sec-
tion, if both attesting witnesses are dead, evidence can be given of the handwrit-
ing of the attesting witness who signed the document, and of the testator, pro-
vided that the document is attested and executed.
Application to the Case:
 Since both the attesting witnesses are dead, "A" can prove the will by showing evidence
of the handwriting of at least one of the attesting witnesses and the handwriting or signa-
ture of the testator (the person who made the will).
 Steps for A to prove the will:
1. Handwriting Evidence: Collect evidence, such as earlier documents or signa-
tures that can be verified to be in the handwriting of the deceased attesting wit-
ness and the testator. This could involve bringing in an expert witness to testify
that the handwriting on the will matches authenticated samples of the testator's
and the witness's handwriting.
2. Secondary Evidence: Since the attesting witnesses are unavailable, "A" might
rely on secondary evidence to establish the validity of the will. This could include
other documents, correspondence, or statements made by the testator that cor-
roborate the contents and authenticity of the will.
 3. Presumptions: In some cases, courts may draw presumptions about the regular-
ity of the execution of documents, particularly when there's no evidence to the
contrary. However, it's crucial to provide as much corroborative evidence as possi-
ble.
Conclusion:
"A" can still prove the will under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act by providing evidence
of the handwriting of one of the deceased attesting witnesses and the testator. This allows
the will to be admitted as valid evidence, despite the absence of live testimony from the at-
testing witnesses

12) ‘A’ wants to prove a document which is destroyed by fire.

Can he produce photo copy of that document to prove it ?

Relevant Sections of the Indian Evidence Act:

Section 63 – Secondary Evidence:
o This section defines what constitutes secondary evidence. It includes copies made
from the original by mechanical processes (like photocopies), copies made from or
compared with the original, counterparts of documents as against the parties who
did not execute them, and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by
someone who has seen it.
Section 65 – Cases in which Secondary Evidence Relating to Documents may be
Given:
o Clause (c) of Section 65 specifically addresses situations where the original has
been destroyed or lost. It states that secondary evidence can be given when the
original is destroyed, lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents can-
not, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in
reasonable time.
Application to the Case:
 Since the original document has been destroyed by fire, A is entitled to produce sec-
ondary evidence to prove the contents of the document.
 Photocopy as Secondary Evidence:
o A photocopy of the document, if it was made before the document was destroyed,
qualifies as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. This
photocopy can be produced to prove the contents of the original document.
o To admit the photocopy as evidence, A must also provide proof of the destruction
of the original document. This could be in the form of an affidavit, testimony, or
other supporting evidence demonstrating that the original document was indeed
destroyed by fire.
o The court may also require A to demonstrate that the photocopy was made from
the original document and that it accurately represents the contents of the origi-
nal.
Conclusion:
Yes, A can produce a photocopy of the document to prove its contents if the original has
been destroyed by fire. This photocopy qualifies as secondary evidence under Sections 63
and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided that A can prove the destruction of the origi-
nal and establish the authenticity of the photocopy.

13) The question is whether ‘A’ committed a crime at Calcutta on

certain day. The fact that, on that day, ‘A’ was at Lahore. Is
this fact relevant ?

Relevant Section of the Indian Evidence Act:

 Section 11 – When Facts Not Otherwise Relevant Become Relevant:
o According to this section, facts not otherwise relevant may become relevant if
they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact or 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.
Application to the Case:
 The question is whether A committed a crime in Calcutta on a specific day. The fact that A
was in Lahore on that same day would be relevant under Section 11 because it is incon-
sistent with the prosecution's claim that A was in Calcutta committing the crime. If A was
in Lahore, it would make it highly improbable that A was in Calcutta at the same time.
 Alibi: The fact that A was in Lahore can serve as an alibi, which is a defense strategy
used to prove that the accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed, thus mak-
ing it impossible for them to have committed the crime.
Conclusion:
The fact that A was at Lahore on the day in question is relevant because it directly affects the
likelihood of A having committed the crime in Calcutta. This fact is admissible as evidence to
support an alibi, making it a crucial part of the defense.

14) The question is whether a given road is a public way or not.

Does the statement by ‘A’ a deceased headman of the village
that “The road was public”. Is this statement relevant ?

Yes, the statement by ‘A’, the deceased headman of the village, that “the road was public” is
relevant. The Indian Evidence Act addresses such situations where statements made by de-
ceased persons can be considered as evidence under certain circumstances.
Relevant Sections of the Indian Evidence Act:
1. Section 32 – Cases in which Statement of Relevant Fact by Person who is Dead
or cannot be Found, etc., is Relevant:
o This section outlines the situations where statements made by a person who is
dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence,
etc., are relevant.
o Specifically, Section 32(4) states that statements made by a deceased person
about public rights or customs, such as whether a road is a public way, are rele-
vant. The section mentions that these statements are admissible if the person
making the statement had special means of knowledge, particularly when the
statement was made before any controversy arose about it.
Application to the Case:
 The question is whether the given road is a public way or not. ‘A’, the deceased headman
of the village, made a statement that the road was public.
 Relevance under Section 32(4):
o ‘A’ was the headman of the village, a position that likely gave him special knowl-
edge about the status of the road, including any customary use by the public.
o The statement made by ‘A’ is relevant because it pertains to a public right
(whether the road is public), and ‘A’ had a position that provided him with authori-
tative knowledge on this matter.
o The fact that ‘A’ is deceased does not disqualify the statement; rather, it makes
the statement admissible under Section 32(4), as it relates to the existence of a
public right.
Conclusion:
The statement by ‘A’, the deceased headman, that “the road was public” is relevant and admissi-
ble as evidence under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. This is because it pertains to the
existence of a public right (the road being public) and was made by someone with special means
of knowledge about the matter.

15) ‘A’ was called to police station for interrogation. During

interrogation ‘A’ complained of severe stomach pain. He was
taken to hospital in a police van, while in hospital, he confessed
to a doctor that the committed robbery. Is the confession
admissible ?

Section 26 – Confession by Accused While in Custody of Police Not to be Proved

Against Him:
 According to this section, a confession made by a person while in the custody of the po-
lice cannot be used against him, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magis-
trate

Application to the Case:

 Custody and Influence of Police:
o ‘A’ was in police custody at the time of the confession, as he was being taken to
the hospital in a police van. The confession was made while ‘A’ was still under the
control and influence of the police, which raises concerns under Section 26 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
 Confession to a Doctor:
o Although the confession was made to a doctor, who is not a police officer, ‘A’ was
still in police custody. The fact that the confession was not made in the presence
of a Magistrate makes it inadmissible under Section 26.
 Voluntariness of Confession:
o Even if the confession was voluntary and made without any apparent inducement,
threat, or promise, the fact that ‘A’ was in police custody at the time makes it in-
admissible unless made before a Magistrate.

16) ‘A’ agrees in writing to pay ‘B’ of Rs. 10,000/- on 1-3-2012.

The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made
that the money should not be paid till 31-3-2012. Can this fact
be proved ?

Section 92 – Exclusion of Evidence of Oral Agreement:

Section 92 states that once the terms of a contract, grant, or disposition of property have been
reduced to writing, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms.
However, this section has several provisos that allow for certain exceptions where oral agree-
ments can be proved.
Application of Provisos to the Case:
1. Proviso (1) – Invalidating Document:
o This proviso allows the proof of any fact that would invalidate the document, such
as fraud, mistake, or lack of consideration.
o In this case: There is no indication that the oral agreement was intended to in-
validate the written agreement or that it involves fraud, mistake, or any other fac-
tor that would invalidate the document.
2. Proviso (2) – Separate Oral Agreement:
 o This proviso allows the proof of a separate oral agreement on a matter on which
the document is silent and which is not inconsistent with its terms.
o In this case: The oral agreement directly contradicts the written agreement's
specified payment date (1-3-2012 vs. 31-3-2012). Therefore, this proviso would
not apply, as the oral agreement is inconsistent with the written terms.
3. Proviso (3) – Condition Precedent:
o This proviso allows for the proof of any oral agreement that constitutes a condition
precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the written contract.
o In this case: The oral agreement does not specify a condition precedent; it
merely attempts to modify the date of payment. Hence, this proviso does not ap-
ply.
4. Proviso (4) – Distinct Subsequent Oral Agreement:
o This proviso allows the proof of a distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or
modify the written contract, unless the contract is required by law to be in writing
or has been registered.
o In this case: The oral agreement was made at the same time as the written
agreement, not subsequently. Therefore, this proviso does not apply.
5. Proviso (5) – Usage or Custom:
o This proviso allows the proof of any usage or custom by which incidents not ex-
pressly mentioned in the contract are usually annexed to contracts of that descrip-
tion, provided that the custom is not inconsistent with the contract’s express
terms.
o In this case: There is no indication of any relevant custom or usage that would
affect the payment date.
6. Proviso (6) – Manner of Relating Language to Facts:
o This proviso allows for proof of any fact that shows in what manner the language
of a document is related to existing facts.
o In this case: This proviso is irrelevant to the specific issue of whether the oral
agreement can contradict the written payment date.
Illustrations Relevant to the Case:
 Illustration (b) under Section 92: It is directly relevant to this case. The illustration
states that if ‘A’ agrees in writing to pay ‘B’ ₹1,000 on a specific date (e.g., 1st March), an
oral agreement made at the same time, stating that the money should not be paid until a
later date (e.g., 31st March), cannot be proved.
Conclusion:
Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the oral agreement made between ‘A’ and ‘B’ that
the payment should be delayed until 31-3-2012 cannot be proved in court. The written agree-
ment specifying the payment date of 1-3-2012 is binding, and the oral agreement, which directly
contradicts the written terms, is inadmissible as evidence.

17) A’ is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. ‘A’

denies the charge. On whom the burden of proof lies ?.

Section 106 Application:

 Section 106 applies to situations where a fact is especially within the knowledge of a
person. In this context, ‘A’'s possession or non-possession of a ticket is a fact especially
within ‘A’'s knowledge.
 If ‘A’ claims that they had a ticket, then under Section 106, the burden of proving that
‘A’ had a ticket falls on ‘A’. This is because the fact of possessing a ticket is solely within
‘A’'s knowledge.

Conclusion:
  ‘A’ is charged with traveling without a ticket, and ‘A’ denies the charge. Although the
prosecution must prove the case against ‘A’, ‘A’ has the burden of proving the fact that
they had a ticket if they assert this claim. Therefore, under Section 106, if ‘A’ asserts
that they had a ticket, they must provide evidence to support that assertion.

18) An accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his

wife in the presence of his 8 years old son, whether the
evidence of child admissible ?

Relevant Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act:

1. Section 118 – Who May Testify:
o Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all persons are competent to
testify unless the court considers them incapable of understanding the questions
put to them or of giving rational answers.
2. Competency of Witnesses:
o For a witness to be competent, they must be able to understand the nature of the
oath and the obligation to tell the truth. In the case of children, the court assesses
their competency based on their ability to understand and answer questions ratio-
nally.
Application to the Case of an 8-Year-Old:
 Competency of a Child Witness:
o An 8-year-old child can be a competent witness if the court is satisfied that the
child understands the duty to tell the truth and can comprehend the questions put
to them. The child’s evidence is admissible if the court finds the child capable of
providing reliable testimony.
 Assessment of the Child’s Evidence:
o The child’s evidence will be evaluated for its reliability and credibility. This in-
cludes determining whether the child’s understanding and perception of the
events are clear and whether their testimony is consistent and trustworthy.
 Corroboration:
o While the testimony of a child is admissible, it is often subjected to scrutiny.
Courts may require corroboration of the child’s testimony with other evidence to
ensure its reliability. The weight given to the child’s evidence depends on various
factors, including the child’s ability to recount the events accurately and consis-
tently.
Judicial Precedents:
 Courts have held that the testimony of a child witness is admissible if the child is deemed
competent. However, the child’s testimony is often carefully examined, and corroborative
evidence is sought to substantiate the child’s statements.
Conclusion:
Yes, the evidence of an 8-year-old child is admissible in court if the child is found competent to
testify under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court will assess the child’s under-
standing and ability to provide rational answers. The admissibility of the evidence does not guar-
antee its acceptance; the court will evaluate the reliability and credibility of the child’s testimony,
and corroborative evidence may be sought to support it.

Ganesh Balai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh:

 On 11th April 2012, 8-year-old Prosecution Witness (PW) 7, daughter of the appellant
and deceased, witnessed her father (appellant) assaulting her mother with a knife at
their home.
 After the incident, Sheetal went to her grandparents' (PW-5 and PW-6) house and in-
formed them about the appellant beating her mother.
  The case proceeded to trial, and the prosecution examined PW-7 as one of the wit-
nesses.
 In her examination-in-chief, Sheetal narrated the incident of the appellant banging her
mother's head and assaulting her with a knife to the stomach and neck.
 The trial court convicted the appellant. Hence, he filed an appeal before the High Court.
 In appeal the appellant's counsel argued that PW-7, being a child witness, was tu-
tored and her testimony was not reliable.
What were the Court’s Observations?
 The court held that “The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected
per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny
and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability”.
 The court observed that PW-7 was substantially intact in her cross-examination and had
clearly stated that she saw the incident.
 The court held that PW-7 was not a tutored witness but the sole eyewitness to
the incident.
 The court found no reason to discard Sheetal's evidence merely because she was a child
witness, as she was able to understand the questions and give rational answers, and her
demeanor was like any other competent witness.
 The court concluded that Sheetal's testimony was reliable and could be the basis for con-
viction, hence the appeal was dismissed.
What is Law Related to Child Witness?
 About:
o Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), a child of tender
age can testify as a witness if the court finds the child has the intellectual capacity
to understand questions and give rational answers.
o No fixed age is prescribed by law to deem a child incompetent to provide tes-
timony.
o Child witnesses form a crucial part of several cases, especially those involving
sexual offenses against minors.
o However, their testimony is often viewed cautiously due to concerns about tutor-
ing, imagination mixing with reality, and susceptibility to influence.
 Competence of Child Witnesses:
o Supreme Court in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra
(2008) held that the decision on whether a child witness has sufficient intelli-
gence rests primarily with the trial judge, who can observe the child's de-
meanor and conduct a preliminary examination to assess the child's capac-
ity, intelligence, and understanding of the obligation to speak the truth.
o The Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
(1952) established that the court should put simple, straightforward questions to
the child to test competence and record its opinion on whether the child under-
stands the duty of truthfulness.
 Credibility and Admissibility
o While children may be legally competent witnesses, their credibility is often chal-
lenged.
o The Supreme Court has observed in several cases that child witnesses are “dan-
gerous” as they are prone to tutoring, confusing dreams with reality, and being
influenced by fear, rewards, or a desire for attention.
 Therefore, their testimony must be evaluated carefully and with greater
circumspection.
o However, if after scrutiny the court finds an "impress of truth" in the child's state-
ment, there is no legal bar to accepting it.
o Competency and admissibility are different – even if competent, a child's state-
ment may be inadmissible if it contains opinions, beliefs or hearsay.
What are the Landmark Judgments of Testimony of Child Witnesses?
  Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952):
o The SC held that the failure to administer an oath only impacts the witness'
credibility, not the admissibility of the evidence. It directed judges to record rea-
sons for finding a child competent.
 R v. Norbury (1977):
o The Privy Council admitted the testimony of a 6-year-old victim of rape, observing
that if the child can understand questions and give rational answers, corroboration
is not essential.
 Mangoo v. State of MP (1995):
o The SC stated that the possibility of tutoring cannot be the sole ground to
conclude that the child witness was indeed tutored. The court must exam-
ine the evidence for any traces of tutoring.
 Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (2008):
o The Supreme Court observed that while child witnesses are susceptible to tu-
toring, if the court finds an "impress of truth" after careful scrutiny, there is no
legal bar to relying on their testimony.
 Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana (2017):
o The SC upheld the conviction based solely on the testimony of the 12-year-old son
who witnessed his father's murder, finding his testimony reliable and admissible.

19) ‘A’ is accused of ‘B’s murder by beating him. At the time of

incident there was an exchange of words between ‘A’ and ‘B’.
Is this fact relevant.

Section 6: This section deals with the doctrine of res gestae. According to this section, facts
that are part of the same transaction are relevant. The exchange of words between ‘A’ and ‘B’
could be considered part of the same transaction as the alleged beating, making it relevant to
understand the nature and context of the incident.

20) The question is whether ‘A’ robbed ‘B’. Does the fact that,
shortly before the robbery, ‘B’ went to a shop with money in his
possession and showed it to third persons, is relevant ?

Section 7, the fact that ‘B’ had money and showed it to others shortly before the robbery is rele-
vant, as it forms a part of the circumstances leading to the fact in issue (the alleged robbery).
This information helps to establish the possibility or likelihood of the robbery occurring, making it
pertinent to the case.

21) A’ is accused of murder of ‘C’. During trial ‘A’ confesses,

I and ‘B’ murdered ‘C’ . Can this confession be considered
against ‘B’ ?

This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against B, as A is not being
jointly tried with B.

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with confessions made by one accused per-
son that implicate another accused person. The key aspect of Section 30 is that such a confes-
sion can only be considered by the court against the co-accused if they are being jointly tried for
the same offense.

 Joint Trial Requirement: The law under Section 30 stipulates that for a confession made by
one accused to be considered against another accused, they must be on trial together. This
means that both 'A' and 'B' must be facing charges in the same case, at the same time, and be-
fore the same court.
 Rationale: The reason for this requirement is to ensure fairness in the judicial process. If 'B' is
not being tried together with 'A', 'A' has no opportunity to cross-examine 'B' or to challenge the
confession. Therefore, using 'B's confession against 'A' without 'B' being jointly tried would be
unjust.

22) The question is whether ‘A’ was legitimate son of ‘B’. Does
the fact that, ‘A’ was always treated as such by the members
of the family relevant ?

 Yes, the fact that 'A' was always treated as the legitimate son of 'B' by the members of
the family is relevant under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with opinions of persons who have special
means of knowledge about the relationship between individuals. It states that when the
court has to form an opinion about the existence of any relationship (such as marriage,
legitimacy, or kinship), the opinion expressed by persons who are likely to know the rela-
tionship by virtue of their close association or connection with the family is relevant.
Application to the Case:
 The question is whether 'A' is the legitimate son of 'B'. The fact that 'A' was always
treated as 'B's legitimate son by the members of the family can be considered an expres-
sion of their opinion on the matter.
 Family members, by virtue of their proximity and close interaction with 'A' and 'B', would
have special means of knowing whether 'A' was recognized and treated as a legitimate
son.
Why is This Relevant?
 Special Knowledge: The family members' consistent treatment of 'A' as 'B's legitimate
son suggests their belief in the legitimacy of that relationship. This treatment serves as
indirect evidence supporting the claim that 'A' is indeed 'B's legitimate son.
 Behavior as Evidence: The way 'A' was treated by those who would be in a position to
know the truth about his status (e.g., other family members) can provide persuasive evi-
dence to the court regarding 'A's legitimacy.

23) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that
it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. On whom burden of proof lies?

Sec 102. On whom burden of proof lies

If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed
and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.

24) ‘A’ has drawn a bill of exchange upon ‘B’. On its presentation ‘B’ denies that the bill was
actually drawn by ‘A’. Is ‘B’ estopped from saying so ?

 General Rule (Section 117): Normally, an acceptor (here, 'B') cannot deny that the
drawer (here, 'A') had the authority to draw or endorse the bill. This rule ensures that
once 'B' accepts the bill, they cannot later argue that 'A' did not have the authority to
issue it.
 Exception (Explanation 1): Despite the general rule, Explanation 1 allows the acceptor
to deny the actual drawing of the bill by 'A'. This means that 'B' can argue that although
'A' may have had the authority, 'A' did not actually draw or sign the bill.
Conclusion:
In this scenario, 'B' is not estopped from saying that the bill was not actually drawn by 'A'. While
Section 117 generally prevents 'B' from denying that 'A' had the authority to draw the bill, Expla-
nation 1 explicitly allows 'B' to contest whether 'A' genuinely drew the bill. Therefore, 'B' can
deny the authenticity of the bill on presentation.

25) ‘A’ a client says to ‘B’, an Advocate, “I have committed forgery

and I wish you to defend me”. Is this communication protected
from disclosure ?

Sec 126 Professional communications.

A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me.” As
the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is pro-
tected from disclosure.

26) ‘A’ wants to adduce oral evidence to prove the genuineness

of a document. Can he do so ?

Yes, 'A' can adduce oral evidence to prove the genuineness of a document under specific circum-
stances described in Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Explanation of Section 22:
Section 22 states:
 Oral Admissions and Relevance: Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are
generally not relevant unless:
o The party proposing to prove them can show that they are entitled to give sec-
ondary evidence of the contents of the document under the relevant rules.
o The genuineness of the document is in question.

27) A is accused of a crime. Prosecution has shown that he

absconded from his house immediately after the incident.
Can ‘A’ prove that he had an urgent work at that time ?

Section 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts

(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded
from his house, is relevant under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in
issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the
place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are neces-
sary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

28) A is accused of an offence. During police custody he was

revealed about the place where he placed the weapons used
for the offence. Weapons were discovered from that place
by the police. What is the evidentiary value of his statement
to police ?

Sec 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him
Sec 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved

under Section 26, the direct statement made by 'A' to the police in custody about the location of
the weapons cannot be used as evidence against him. However, the discovery of the weapons as
a result of this statement is admissible under Section 27, as it is relevant to the investigation
and establishes a link between 'A' and the evidence found. The evidentiary value of 'A's state-
ment is thus limited to the fact that it led to the discovery of the weapons, not as a confession of
the offence itself.

29) H is accused of causing dowry death of his wife W. There

are letters from deceased W to her parents about dowry
harrassment from H. Are these letters relevant ?

Yes, the letters from the deceased W to her parents about dowry harassment from H are relevant
in this case under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Sec32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be
found, etc., is relevant.
32(1) When it relates to cause of death

 Relevance of the Letters:

 Relates to Cause of Death: The letters written by W to her parents describing dowry
harassment are relevant under Section 32(1) because they relate to the circumstances
leading up to W's death. If W's death is the result of dowry harassment or related factors,
these letters provide evidence of her condition and experiences leading up to her death.
 Context of the Letters:
 Nature of Statements: The letters describe the dowry harassment W experienced,
which is directly related to the cause of her death if it is linked to dowry-related issues.
Therefore, they help establish the context of her death and the environment in which she
lived, providing insight into the circumstances that might have contributed to her death.
Relevance of the Entire Document:
Part of a Series: If the letters are part of a series or collection of communications (e.g., a series
of letters documenting ongoing harassment), Section 39 directs that only those parts of the
letters that are necessary to understand the context and the nature of the statement should be
considered.
Selective Evidence: The court will evaluate and admit only the portions of the letters that are
pertinent to proving the dowry harassment and establishing the connection to the cause of W’s
death.

30) A wants to prove a registered Will. He contends that he need

not call any attesting witness for the purpose of proving will
as the will is registered. Decide.

Section 68:
Proof of Execution of Document Required: To prove the execution of a Will (or any docu-
ment), the person seeking to prove the document must generally provide proof of its execution
by calling at least one of the attesting witnesses.

31) A Medical Officer during deposition failed to point out the

difference between narcotic drug and psychotrophic
substances. Is his opinion admissible in evidence ?

Yes, his opinion is admissible under section 45 Opinions of experts

A deposition refers to the formal process where a witness provides sworn testimony outside of
the courtroom.
  Deposition: A deposition is a legal procedure where a witness (such as an expert or a
party involved in the case) is questioned under oath, and their answers are recorded by a
court reporter. This process usually occurs during the discovery phase of a legal case.
"Durand Didier v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa”----
Medical Officer’s Expertise: The Medical Officer’s failure to distinguish between narcotic and
psychotropic substances does not invalidate their evidence. Their testimony remains admissible
as it pertains to their field of expertise, even if they lack legal definitions.

Application to the Case:

1. Admissibility of Medical Officer’s Testimony:
o Expert Knowledge vs. Legal Knowledge: The judgment confirms that the Med-
ical Officer’s lack of knowledge regarding the legal distinctions between narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances does not disqualify their testimony. The ex-
pert's primary role is to provide medical or chemical insights, not legal definitions.
o Reliability of Evidence: The Medical Officer's testimony is admissible because it
provides relevant information about the substances involved. The lack of legal
distinction does not affect the core factual evidence provided by the expert.

32) A landlord had let out the outhouse for residential purpose.
But he tolerated non-residential use of the house by the tenant
for seven years. Is the landlord estopped from seeking
eviction on that ground ?

Estoppel Principle: Normally prevents a party from going back on their established position if it
leads to unfairness.
Landlord’s Conduct: Toleration over seven years implies acceptance, which could undermine
the landlord’s current position.
The landlord’s tolerance of non-residential use for seven years generally supports the tenant’s
position and might hinder the landlord's attempt to enforce the original residential-use clause.

Estoppel (Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act):

 By tolerating non-residential use for seven years, the landlord’s conduct could be seen as
making a representation or permitting the tenant to believe that the non-residential use
was acceptable. Thus, the landlord might be estopped from asserting a claim for eviction
based on the original residential-use requirement.

Section 3: Bar of Limitation

 Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that every suit, appeal, and application
must be filed within the period prescribed by the Act. If a legal action is not initiated
within the specified time limit, it is barred by limitation.

Waiver (Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act):

 The landlord’s long-term tolerance of the breach (non-residential use) might be consid-
ered a waiver of the strict terms of the lease. This waiver implies that the landlord has
accepted the changed use and may be barred from later enforcing the original terms.

33) A agrees in writing to sell a horse to B for Rs. 1,000 or

Rs. 1,500. Can evidence be given to show which price was
to be given ?

No, evidence of ambiguous documents not admissible.

Sec 93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.
 34) 'A' a client says to 'B' an Attorney, "I wish to murder 'C' on
which I request you to defend me ". Is this communication
protected from disclosure ?

Not protected from disclosure, acc to sec 126 professional communication

(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a
forged deed on which I request you to sue.” This communication, being made in furtherance of a
criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.