Of Oral Evidence MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Of Oral Evidence - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is 'Either by primary or secondary evidence'.

Key Points

• Sec. 61 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section states that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.
  • Primary evidence refers to the original document itself, whereas secondary evidence can include copies, counterparts, or oral accounts of the content of a document.
  • Allowing both types of evidence provides flexibility in legal proceedings, ensuring that the truth can be established even if the original document is unavailable.

Additional Information

• Only by certified copies of the documents only:
  • This option is incorrect because Sec. 61 does not limit the proof of documents to certified copies only.
  • Certified copies are a form of secondary evidence, but primary evidence can also be used.
• Only by primary evidence:
  • This option is incorrect as it excludes the use of secondary evidence, which is permitted under Sec. 61.
  • Primary evidence is preferable, but the law recognizes situations where it may not be possible to produce the original document.
• Only by secondary evidence:
  • This option is incorrect because it disregards the use of primary evidence, which is also allowed under Sec. 61.
  • Secondary evidence is used when primary evidence is not available or practical to produce.

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• A fact may be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence.
• There are two methods, one by producing the witness of fact and getting his deposition which is called oral evidence, and second by producing a document which records a fact, which is called documentary evidence.
• Section 3:-It defines what evidence is oral and documentary.
• Both oral evidence and documentary evidence carry equal weightage in their acceptance as evidence.
• Rules governing two kinds of evidence:-
• Sections 59 and 60 deal with rules of oral evidence whereas sections 61 to 90 deal with rules of documentary evidence.
• Oral Evidence:-
  • Section 3 defines oral evidence as “All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses to the matter under inquiry such statements are called as Oral Evidence".
  • Section 59:- It says all facts except the contents of a document or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
  • Section 59 makes it clear that all the facts except those which are contained in documents be proved by oral evidence, which includes electronic documents, which are considered as documents after the IT Act 2000 has been passed.
• Modes of proof of the contents of the document:-
  • Section 61-: Proof of contents of documents- The contents of documents may be proved either by Primary or Secondary evidence.
  • Section 62:- Primary evidence:- Primary evidence means the documents itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
• Secondary Evidence:-
  • Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the term "Secondary Evidence". Secondary evidence includes-
    1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained.
    2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies.
    3. Copies made from or compared with the original.
    4. Counterparts of documents against the parties who did not execute them.
    5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has seen it.
  • Illustrations:-
    • An original photograph is secondary evidence of its contents though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. 
    • A copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

The correct option is Y's statement about the accident is hearsay evidence.

Key Points

• Hearsay evidence refers to any statement made outside of court by someone other than the witness testifying and offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
• In the condition provided, Y's statement about seeing the speedy vehicle but not witnessing the accident directly is hearsay because it is his personal account of events that he did not directly observe. 
• The statement made by X to Y explaining the accident would also likely be considered hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., how the accident occurred).
• Y's statement about the accident is hearsay evidence. Hence, his statement explaining the accident is inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the admissibility of hearsay evidence ( False Evidence).
  • It states that oral evidence must be direct and if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness who says he saw it. 
• Therefore, both Y's statement and X's explanation to Y about the accident would likely be inadmissible under this section since they are both hearsay and do not meet the requirement of being direct evidence from a witness who personally observed the events.

The correct answer is 30 years old

Key PointsSection 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relates to presumption of documents thirty years old.

It states that : Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
 

The correct answer is oral evidence.

Key Points

• Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for Witness unable to communicate verbally.
• It states that –– A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence:
  Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video graphed

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points

• As per Section 119 of the Evidence Act 1872, if the witness is unable to speak, he may give evidence by writing or by signs. But, such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court and the evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
• Effect of the Section
  • It applies to the cases of people who are unable to speak due to physical deformity.
  • A witness who has taken a religious vow of silence should be deemed to be unable to speak within the meaning of this Section.
  • When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the Court, the Court has to exercise due caution and care.
  • When a deaf-dumb is a witness, the Court will ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the required amount of intelligence and understands the nature of an oath.
• In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012), the Supreme Court held that language is much more than words. Like all other languages, communication by way of signs has some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user is attempting to convey. But a dumb person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness merely due to his/her physical ability. Such a person, though unable to speak, may convey himself through writing, if literate, or through signs and gestures, if he is unable to read and write.
• In the case of Chander Singh v. State (2016) the High Court of Delhi observed that the vocabulary of a deaf and dumb witness may be very limited and due care must be taken when such a witness is under cross-examination.

The correct option is Option 2.

Key Points

• Extra-judicial confession:-
  • It is difficult to rely upon the extra-judicial confession as the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced.
  • Such a statement cannot be said to be voluntary so the extra judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration for bringing home the charge.
  • It cannot be the sole basis for recording the confession of the accused if the other surrounding circumstances and the materials available on the record do not suggest his complicity.
  • If it is voluntary truthful, reliable and beyond reproach is an efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
  • The evidence of extra-judicial confession does not need to be corroborated by material facts.
• When extra-judicial confession is not reliable:-
  • ​A confession was not disclosed to the wife of the deceased but it was disclosed to the police officer and was not included the extrajudicial confession is not reliable.
  • If the evidence of the witness before whom the confession was made is unreliable his conduct is also doubtful and there is no other circumstance to connect the accused with crime.
  • It is the conviction based solely on retracted extra-judicial confession is not proper and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
  • The extra-judicial confession is not trustworthy and cannot be used for corroboration of any other evidence.

The correct option is All facts except contents of documents or electronic records.

Key Points

• A fact may be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence.
• There are two methods, one by producing the witness of fact and getting his deposition which is called oral evidence, and second by producing a document which records a fact, which is called documentary evidence.
• Section 3:-It defines what evidence is oral and documentary.
• Both oral evidence and documentary evidence carry equal weightage in their acceptance as evidence.
• Rules governing two kinds of evidence:-
• Sections 59 and 60 deal with rules of oral evidence whereas sections 61 to 73A deal with rules of documentary evidence.
• Oral Evidence:-
  • Section 3 defines oral evidence as “All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses to the matter under inquiry such statements are called as Oral Evidence".
  • Section 59:- It says all facts except the contents of a document or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
  • Section 59 makes it clear that all the facts except those which are contained in documents be proved by oral evidence, which includes electronic documents, which are considered as documents after the IT Act 2000 has been passed.
• Modes of proof of the contents of the document:-
  • Section 61-: Proof of contents of documents- The contents of documents may be proved either by Primary or Secondary evidence.

The correct answer is primary or secondary evidence

Key Points

• Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • States that all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
  • Therefore, contents of a document cannot be proved by oral evidence alone.
• How can document contents be proved?
• According to Section 61, contents of documents may be proved by:
  • Primary evidence (original document)
  • Or Secondary evidence (such as certified copies, oral accounts of contents by someone who has seen it, etc., as allowed under Section 63 and 65).
• Legal Principle:
  • Documents speak for themselves — hence, their contents must be proved through the document itself or its permissible substitutes.

The correct answer is 'Either by primary or secondary evidence'.

Key Points

• Sec. 61 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • This section states that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.
  • Primary evidence refers to the original document itself, whereas secondary evidence can include copies, counterparts, or oral accounts of the content of a document.
  • Allowing both types of evidence provides flexibility in legal proceedings, ensuring that the truth can be established even if the original document is unavailable.

Additional Information

• Only by certified copies of the documents only:
  • This option is incorrect because Sec. 61 does not limit the proof of documents to certified copies only.
  • Certified copies are a form of secondary evidence, but primary evidence can also be used.
• Only by primary evidence:
  • This option is incorrect as it excludes the use of secondary evidence, which is permitted under Sec. 61.
  • Primary evidence is preferable, but the law recognizes situations where it may not be possible to produce the original document.
• Only by secondary evidence:
  • This option is incorrect because it disregards the use of primary evidence, which is also allowed under Sec. 61.
  • Secondary evidence is used when primary evidence is not available or practical to produce.

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• A fact may be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence.
• There are two methods, one by producing the witness of fact and getting his deposition which is called oral evidence, and second by producing a document which records a fact, which is called documentary evidence.
• Section 3:-It defines what evidence is oral and documentary.
• Both oral evidence and documentary evidence carry equal weightage in their acceptance as evidence.
• Rules governing two kinds of evidence:-
• Sections 59 and 60 deal with rules of oral evidence whereas sections 61 to 90 deal with rules of documentary evidence.
• Oral Evidence:-
  • Section 3 defines oral evidence as “All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses to the matter under inquiry such statements are called as Oral Evidence".
  • Section 59:- It says all facts except the contents of a document or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
  • Section 59 makes it clear that all the facts except those which are contained in documents be proved by oral evidence, which includes electronic documents, which are considered as documents after the IT Act 2000 has been passed.
• Modes of proof of the contents of the document:-
  • Section 61-: Proof of contents of documents- The contents of documents may be proved either by Primary or Secondary evidence.
  • Section 62:- Primary evidence:- Primary evidence means the documents itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
• Secondary Evidence:-
  • Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the term "Secondary Evidence". Secondary evidence includes-
    1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained.
    2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies.
    3. Copies made from or compared with the original.
    4. Counterparts of documents against the parties who did not execute them.
    5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has seen it.
  • Illustrations:-
    • An original photograph is secondary evidence of its contents though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. 
    • A copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

The correct option is Y's statement about the accident is hearsay evidence.

Key Points

• Hearsay evidence refers to any statement made outside of court by someone other than the witness testifying and offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
• In the condition provided, Y's statement about seeing the speedy vehicle but not witnessing the accident directly is hearsay because it is his personal account of events that he did not directly observe. 
• The statement made by X to Y explaining the accident would also likely be considered hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., how the accident occurred).
• Y's statement about the accident is hearsay evidence. Hence, his statement explaining the accident is inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the admissibility of hearsay evidence ( False Evidence).
  • It states that oral evidence must be direct and if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness who says he saw it. 
• Therefore, both Y's statement and X's explanation to Y about the accident would likely be inadmissible under this section since they are both hearsay and do not meet the requirement of being direct evidence from a witness who personally observed the events.

The correct answer is 30 years old

Key PointsSection 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relates to presumption of documents thirty years old.

It states that : Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
 

The correct answer is oral evidence.

Key Points

• Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for Witness unable to communicate verbally.
• It states that –– A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence:
  Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video graphed

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points

• As per Section 119 of the Evidence Act 1872, if the witness is unable to speak, he may give evidence by writing or by signs. But, such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court and the evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
• Effect of the Section
  • It applies to the cases of people who are unable to speak due to physical deformity.
  • A witness who has taken a religious vow of silence should be deemed to be unable to speak within the meaning of this Section.
  • When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the Court, the Court has to exercise due caution and care.
  • When a deaf-dumb is a witness, the Court will ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the required amount of intelligence and understands the nature of an oath.
• In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012), the Supreme Court held that language is much more than words. Like all other languages, communication by way of signs has some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user is attempting to convey. But a dumb person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness merely due to his/her physical ability. Such a person, though unable to speak, may convey himself through writing, if literate, or through signs and gestures, if he is unable to read and write.
• In the case of Chander Singh v. State (2016) the High Court of Delhi observed that the vocabulary of a deaf and dumb witness may be very limited and due care must be taken when such a witness is under cross-examination.