Of Witnesses MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Of Witnesses - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

The correct answer is T.J. Ponnam V. M.C. Verghese

Key Points

• This case is not related to confession, but instead deals with the admissibility of a letter written by a husband to his wife and the exceptions to marital privilege under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 122).
• It discusses whether communication between spouses can be used as evidence, not about the legal principles of confession.

Additional Information

• Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (1947)
  • Landmark case explaining Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with admissibility of confessions leading to the discovery of facts.
• State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyay (1960)
  • Related to confessional statements and Article 20(3) of the Constitution (protection against self-incrimination).
• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
  • Deals with the scope of testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3), especially in the context of confession and evidence gathering.

The correct answer is 'Oral evidence'

Key Points

• Understanding oral evidence:
  • According to Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a dumb witness (a witness who is unable to speak) can provide evidence in court by writing or by using signs that can be understood.
  • Such evidence, when communicated in open court, is treated as oral evidence, provided it is intelligible and properly understood by the presiding officer of the court.
  • The rationale is that oral evidence refers to any evidence given by a witness in the form of spoken or communicated words, including through alternative methods like writing or gestures, in the courtroom.

Additional Information

• Explanation of other options:
  • Documentary evidence: This refers to evidence presented in the form of documents, such as written records, contracts, or other physical documents. The evidence provided by a dumb witness in open court is not considered documentary evidence because it is not a pre-existing document but rather a direct form of communication.
  • Written evidence: Written evidence generally refers to documents or written statements submitted as evidence, but it does not encompass written communication given live in court by a witness. The writing of a dumb witness in court is treated as oral evidence because it is equivalent to spoken testimony.
  • Any one of the above: This option is incorrect because the evidence of a dumb witness in open court is specifically classified as oral evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and not any other form of evidence.

The correct answer is Section 134.

Key Points

• Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • Section 134 states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
  • This implies that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if the court finds the testimony to be reliable and credible.
  • The principle emphasizes the quality of evidence rather than the quantity.

Additional Information

• Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • Section 133 deals specifically with the evidence of accomplices, stating that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person.
  • However, the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
• Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • Section 119 addresses the competence of witnesses who are unable to speak.
  • It states that such witnesses may give their evidence in writing or by signs, which should be recorded in open court.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect as Section 134 is the relevant provision that allows conviction based on the testimony of a single witness.

The correct answer is Section 119

Key Points

• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 made significant amendments to various laws, including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in response to the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee.
• Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act was amended to provide that a dumb witness (who cannot speak) can give their evidence in any intelligible manner, including by writing or signs.
• If such a witness cannot communicate even through writing or signs, the court shall record the evidence through an interpreter, who must take an oath before interpreting.
• This amendment ensured that victims with speech impairments or other communication disabilities could effectively testify in court.

The correct answer is The communication is not protected from disclosure.

 Key Points

• Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • Provides privilege to communications made by a client to his legal adviser in the course of professional employment.
  • Such communications cannot be compelled to be disclosed in court.
• Exception to Privilege – Illegal or Criminal Purpose:
  • Section 126 does not protect communications made to facilitate or commit a crime or fraud.
  • If the communication is about using a forged deed (a criminal/fraudulent act), the privilege does not apply.
• Application to the Given Scenario:
  • Here, ‘A’ openly admits to using a forged deed, which is a criminal act.
  • Therefore, the communication loses protection under Section 126 and can be disclosed.
• Legal Policy:
  • The law aims to prevent misuse of the privilege to conceal criminal intentions.

Additional Information

• Option 1. The communication is protected from disclosure: Incorrect because privilege does not extend to communications made for committing crimes or fraud.
• Option 3. Limited protection can be granted: Incorrect as the law draws a clear line: no protection if communication is for criminal purpose.
• Option 4. This communication can be rejected: Incorrect because the communication is admissible as evidence to prove the criminal intention.

The correct answer is Any one of the above grounds

Key Points

• Section 118 lays down the general rule regarding who may testify as a witness:
• “All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions.
• Key Grounds for Incompetence to Testify:
  • Tender age:
    • If a child is too young to understand questions or respond logically, they may be deemed incompetent.
  • Extreme old age:
    • Advanced age can lead to cognitive decline making a person unable to understand or answer properly.
  • Disease of mind or body:
    • Mental illness or serious physical conditions (like inability to speak, hear, or respond coherently) can make one incompetent.
  • Any of the above individually is sufficient, depending on the court’s satisfaction.

​Additional Information

• Extreme old age: Incomplete – it's one of several grounds.
• Tender age and extreme old age: Incomplete – excludes disease or other conditions.
• Disease whether of mind or body: Also just one valid ground – not comprehensive.

The correct answer is That an accomplice is unworthy of credit

Key Points

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes certain presumptions under law — some are rebuttable (may be disproved), while others are conclusive.
• "That an accomplice is not unworthy of credit"
  • Correct – As per Section 133, an accomplice is a competent witness.
  • However, courts generally seek corroboration as a rule of prudence, not law.
• "That Judicial and Official Acts have been regularly performed"
  •  Correct – Covered under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act.
  • Presumption exists that official duties are regularly performed.
• "That a common course of business has been followed in particular cases"
  • Correct – Covered under Section 114(f) – presumption related to routine conduct in business.

Additional Information

• "That an accomplice is unworthy of credit": Incorrect statement – The law does not presume that an accomplice is inherently unreliable.
• In fact, Section 133 says an accomplice shall be a competent witness, though caution is advised via Section 114(b).

The correct answer is 'Section 141'

Key Points

• Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • Section 141 deals with the concept of leading questions during the examination of witnesses in a legal proceeding.
  • A leading question is one that suggests the answer desired by the person who asks the question. Typically, these are not permitted during the examination-in-chief but may be allowed during cross-examination.
  • The section outlines the conditions under which leading questions can be asked and the discretion of the court to permit such questions.

Additional Information

• Section 137:
  • This section defines the examination of witnesses, including examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.
  • It does not specifically deal with leading questions but provides a general framework for witness examination.
• Section 143:
  • This section permits leading questions during cross-examination.
  • It allows such questions to be used more freely to challenge the credibility of the witness or to uncover inconsistencies in their testimony.

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

•  Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, “An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
• Who is accomplice?
  • In the case of R.K.Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court while defining the term accomplice said that an accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of a crime.
  • The court further stated that accomplice includes particeps criminis that mean a partner in crime.

Additional Information

•  Another concept of accomplice is given under Illustration (b) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.
• It provides that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars
• Sec 133 and the illustration (b) of the sec 114 are not antithesis to each other, because sec 114 is concerned with the ‘may presume’ i.e. Court may presume certain state of facts. It is not conclusive presumption.
• Therefore, sec 133 lays down a rule of law, while sec 114 illustration (b) lays down a rule of prudence. 
• It is important to note that an accomplice is called as an ‘approver’ if he granted pardon under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and become prosecution witness. 

The correct answer is 'OPTION 3.'

Key Points

• Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • This section protects communications between a client and their legal advisor. It ensures that any communication made in confidence is not disclosed by the legal advisor.
  • The protection is applicable as long as the communication is made in the course of and for the purpose of professional engagement.
  • The aim of this section is to promote full and frank communication between clients and their legal advisors, which is essential for effective legal representation.
• Option 1:
  • Disclosure of a crime already committed (e.g., murder) to a legal advisor for defense purposes is protected under this section.
• Option 2:
  • Admitting to obtaining possession of property through forged documents and seeking defense still falls under protected communication because it pertains to past actions.
• Option 3:
  • Requesting legal advice to commit a future illegal act (e.g., obtaining possession of property through a forged will) is not protected under Section 126. The law does not protect communications that further an illegal purpose.

Additional Information

• Client-Lawyer Confidentiality:
  • This principle is fundamental to the legal profession worldwide, ensuring that clients can communicate openly without fear of disclosure.
  • It is crucial for the administration of justice, allowing lawyers to prepare an effective defense or case strategy.
• Exceptions to Confidentiality:
  • Communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
  • Facts observed by the legal advisor during their employment that show a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of their employment.