Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Important Questions

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Important Questions

Question 1.
Distinguish between: ‘Relevant Facts’ & ‘Facts In issue’ [Dec2011 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Relevant Fact [Section 3]: One fact is said to be relevant to another when one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”.

Sections 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with the relevancy of facts. A fact is also known as factum plans or a fact that proves.

Facts in issue [Section 3]: Facts in issue means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceedings, necessarily follows.

Explanation: Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.

Question 2.
Satyam is facing trial for the charge of committing the murder of Raja at Pune at 5.00 p.m. on 5th November 2019. Satyam wants to prove that he had a telephonic conversation with Nalin, from Delhi on 5th November 2019 at about 3.30 p.m. Will he be permitted to do so? [Dec. 2000 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact that is inconsistent with fact in issue, is a relevant fact. The fact that Satyam had a telephonic conversation with Nalin from Delhi on 5th November 2019 at about 3.30 p.m. is inconsistent with the fact that he was present on the date of murder i.e. 5th November 2019 in Pune at 5.00 p.m.

Question 3.
Enjoy, after learning that Chander had been murdered by Bijoy, went to the spot and found that the body of Chander was being taken to the house of Chander by four persons who told him that Bijoy had murdered Chander and he had run away. Is the statement of Ajoy that he was told by four persons that Bijoy had murdered Chander and run away admissible as evidence? [Dec. 2004 (6 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts which, though not in issue are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different time and place.

In this case, Ajoy is a bystander he was told by other bystanders that Bijoy had murdered Chander and run away. Hence, this is not admissible as evidence | as it will be considered as hearsay.

Question 4.
Write a short note on Rule of res gestae [June 2011 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
There are certain facts which though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. This is known as the rule of res gestae.

Section 6 embodies the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res gestae.

Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction [Section 6]: Facts which, though not in issue are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different time and place.

Example: A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after is as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

The above section lays down the rule which in English textbooks is treated under the head of res gestae.

The essence of the doctrine of res gestae is that the facts which, though not in issue are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction and thereby become relevant like the fact in issue.

Question 5.
A was tried for the murder of B whose body was found in a well and the ornaments that B was wearing were missing from his body. A, while in police custody, during the investigation said that he had removed the ornaments, pushed B into the well and had pledged the ornaments with C. In consequence of this statement, the ornaments were recovered from C. Discuss the admissibility of A’s statement. [June 2002 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The effect is that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible in evidence.

In the given case, A had given three information’s, namely:

  • He had removed the ornaments.
  • He pushed B into the well.
  • He pledged the ornaments with C.

In consequence of the statement of A, the ornaments were recovered from C. However, only the last information that he pledged the ornaments with C is discovered and hence, it can be proved by A’s admission. The other two pieces of information’s do not distinctly relate to the recovery of ornaments from C. Hence, they cannot be proved by A’s admission.

Question 6.
Anand is on trial for the murder of Chanchal. There is evidence to show that Chanchal was murdered by Anand and Birender and that Birender said, “Anand and I murdered Chanchal.” Can the Court take into consideration this statement against Anand? Will your reply be different in case there is a joint trial against Anand and Birender? Give reasons.[June 2005 (6 Marks)]
Answer:
According to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

In the given case, Anand and Birender are not jointly tried hence Court cannot take into consideration this statement given by Birender against Anand.

If they are jointly tried then Court may take into consideration the confession of Birender as against Anand as well as Birender.

Question 7.
An accused person makes a confessional statement to the police officer in the hearing and presence of a private person. Can the private person give evidence of the confessional statement made by the accused person so as to be proved against the accused? [June 2006 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

As per Section 26, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved as against such person.

In the given case, there is no Magistrate present; hence, the private person cannot give evidence of the confessional statement of the accused so that it can be proved against the accused.

Question 8.
On 20th March, Kamal told his wife that he was going to Berhampore, as Pankaj’s wife has written a letter and asked him to come and receive payments due to him. On 21st March, Kama! left his house in time to catch a train for Berhampore, where Pankaj lived with his wife. On 23rd March, Kamal’s dismembered body was found in a box that had been purchased for Pankaj. Decide whether, on the trial of Pankaj for the murder of Kamal, the statement made by Kamal to his wife was admissible in evidence. If so, on what grounds? [June 2009 (6 Marks)]
Answer:
In Indian law, for admissibility of a statement as a dying declaration, it is not necessary that at the time when the deceased made the statement there must be a danger to his death and he must also entertain a reasonable apprehension of his death.

The statement of Kamal is admissible in evidence as to his dying declaration as per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because it throws light upon the probable cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.

Therefore, although at the time Kamal made the statement, there was no danger to his life, yet this statement can be accepted in evidence as to the dying declaration of Kamal.

Question 9.
Mohan and Sohan are jointly tried for the murder of Rohan. It is proved that Mohan said, Sohan and I murdered Rohan. Can the court consider the effect of this confession as against Sohan? Give reasons. [June 2013 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
Provision: According to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

Facts:

  1. Mohan and Sohan are jointly tried for the murder of Rohan.
  2. It is proved that Mohan said, “Sohan and I murdered Rohan.
  3. Mohan and Sohan are co-accused and are jointly tried

Conclusion: Court can take into consideration the statement given by Mohan against Sohan.

Question 10.
Distinguish between: Confession & Admission [Dec. 2009 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between confession & admission:

Points Confession Admission
Meaning A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting that he has committed an offence. Admission is a statement that suggests any inference as to any ‘fact in issue’ or ‘relevant fact’.
Who makes A confession is made by an accused. Admissions can be made by other persons also.
Proceedings Confession finds a place in criminal proceedings. Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may be used in criminal proceedings.
Treatment Every confession is an admission. Every admission in a criminal case is not a confession.
Culpatory Confession statement is culpatory. Admission is exculpatory.
Proved Confession is proved only for purposes mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admitted facts need not be proved.
Where inadmissible A confession is inadmissible in evidence if it has been made under-promise, threat or due to inducement. No such conditions are applicable to an admission.
Effect A confession always goes against the person making it. An admission, on the contrary, may be used on behalf of the perse n making it under the exception provided in Section 21.

Question 11.
A confession made by an accused on the faith of a promise made by the police officer making the investigation that he would get off if he made a disclosure of the offence committed by him or would get a pardon. Whether such a confession made by the accused is admissible in evidence? Answer citing the relevant provisions of law. [Dec 2011 (6 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession is irrelevant as an admission if it is made to a person in authority in consequence of some inducement, threat or promise held out by him in reference to the charge against the accused. Further Section 25 provides that confession made to a police officer shall not be proved against a person accused of any offence. Hence, a confession made by the accused person to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence.

Question 12.
Distinguish between: ‘Admissions’ and ‘confessions’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Dec 2013 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between confession & admission:

Points Confession Admission
Meaning A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting that he has committed an offence. Admission is a statement that suggests any inference as to any ‘fact in issue’ or ‘relevant fact’.
Who makes A confession is made by an accused. Admissions can be made by other persons also.
Proceedings Confession finds a place in criminal proceedings. Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may be used in criminal proceedings.
Treatment Every confession is an admission. Every admission in a criminal case is not a confession.
Culpatory Confession statement is culpatory. Admission is exculpatory.
Proved Confession is proved only for purposes mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admitted facts need not be proved.
Where inadmissible A confession is inadmissible in evidence if it has been made under-promise, threat or due to inducement. No such conditions are applicable to an admission.
Effect A confession always goes against the person making it. An admission, on the contrary, may be used on behalf of the perse n making it under the exception provided in Section 21.

Question 13.
Distinguish between ‘Admission’ and ‘Confession’ under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Dec 2018 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between confession & admission:

Points Confession Admission
Meaning A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting that he has committed an offence. Admission is a statement that suggests any inference as to any ‘fact in issue’ or ‘relevant fact’.
Who makes A confession is made by an accused. Admissions can be made by other persons also.
Proceedings Confession finds a place in criminal proceedings. Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may be used in criminal proceedings.
Treatment Every confession is an admission. Every admission in a criminal case is not a confession.
Culpatory Confession statement is culpatory. Admission is exculpatory.
Proved Confession is proved only for purposes mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admitted facts need not be proved.
Where inadmissible A confession is inadmissible in evidence if it has been made under-promise, threat or due to inducement. No such conditions are applicable to an admission.
Effect A confession always goes against the person making it. An admission, on the contrary, may be used on behalf of the perse n making it under the exception provided in Section 21.

Question 14.
‘Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant. Explain briefly. [June 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise to have reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Question 15.
Explain Expert Opinion under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [June 2012 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Opinion of experts [Section 45]: When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

Examples:
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a certain document was written by X.
Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by X. The opinions of experts on the question of whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

Question 16.
Opinion of experts under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [June 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Opinion of experts [Section 45]: When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

Examples:
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a certain document was written by X.
Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by X. The opinions of experts on the question of whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

Question 17.
“Hearsay evidence is no evidence”. Explain this rule of law. Is hearsay evidence ever admissible? [Dec 2000 (8 Marks)]
Answer:
Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, except the contents of the document, all other facts may be proved by oral evidence.

Section 60 enacts that, oral evidence must not be indirect or hearsay. The term ‘hearsay’ is not mentioned in the legislation, it is in constant use in the Court of law. In a larger context, it can be termed as statements oral or written reported to have been made by persons, not called witnesses.

Example: Amar gives the evidence in the Court that “he had seen Baban while making the murder of Chirag”. It is direct evidence and is admissible.

However, if Amar gives the evidence that he has heard from someone that “Baban murdered Chirag” is hearsay evidence and is not admissible.

Reasons for rejection of hearsay evidence: There are many reasons for rejection of hearsay evidence, among them, being:

  • The irresponsibility of the original declarant.
  • Depreciation of truth in the process of repetition.
  • Chances for fraud on its admission.
  • Waste of time involved in listening to idle rumour etc.

Hearsay evidence is therefore not ordinarily accepted in line with the principle that best available evidence should be brought before the Court. Section 60 puts an embargo on the reception of hearsay evidence. However, it does not apply when the object is not to establish the truth of one’s statement but only to establish the fact that one did make a statement.

Question 18.
Explain: Circumstantial Evidence [Dec 2009 (2 Marks)]
Answer:
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that strongly suggests something but does not exactly prove it. Circumstantial evidence simply helps people draw inferences about a fact or the events that took place. This type of evidence is, on its own, considered to be weak or ineffective, so it is used in conjunction with direct evidence in both criminal and civil cases. Whether or not the Court makes the intended inference has a major impact on the outcome of the case.

Example: Meena testifies in Court that she saw Rohan standing over a man with a bloody knife in his hand. Menna did not see Rohan stab the victim, so she can only testify and describe what she saw. This circumstantial evidence j is likely not enough by itself to convict Rohan, so the prosecution provides J other evidence which, when added to Meena’s testimony, leads the Court to j the conclusion that Rohan stabbed the victim.

Question 19.
Distinguish between: Primary Evidence & Secondary Evidence [June 2010 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Primary Evidence [Section 62]: Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Secondary Evidence [Section 63]: Secondary evidence is generally in the form of compared copies, certified copies or copies made by such mechanical processes as in themselves ensure accuracy.

Secondary evidence means and includes:

  • certified copies;
  • copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
  • copies made from or compared with the original;
  • counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
  • oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

Question 20.
Write a short note on Circumstantial Evidence [Dec 2010 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that strongly suggests something but does not exactly prove it. Circumstantial evidence simply helps people draw inferences about a fact or the events that took place. This type of evidence is, on its own, considered to be weak or ineffective, so it is used in conjunction with direct evidence in both criminal and civil cases. Whether or not the Court makes the intended inference has a major impact on the outcome of the case.

Example: Meena testifies in Court that she saw Rohan standing over a man with a bloody knife in his hand. Menna did not see Rohan stab the victim, so she can only testify and describe what she saw. This circumstantial evidence j is likely not enough by itself to convict Rohan, so the prosecution provides J other evidence which, when added to Meena’s testimony, leads the Court to j the conclusion that Rohan stabbed the victim.

Question 21.
Write a short note on Primary Evidence & Secondary Evidence [June 2011 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Primary Evidence [Section 62]: Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Secondary Evidence [Section 63]: Secondary evidence is generally in the form of compared copies, certified copies or copies made by such mechanical processes as in themselves ensure accuracy.

Secondary evidence means and includes:

  • certified copies;
  • copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
  • copies made from or compared with the original;
  • counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
  • oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

Question 22.
What is ‘documentary evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? Explain briefly. [Dec 2018 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Documentary Evidence: A “document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. Documents produced for the inspection of the Court is called documentary evidence.

Proof of contents of documents [Section 61]: The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary7 evidence.

Question 23.
Explain the special provisions as to Evidence relating to Electronic Record under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Dec 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1 872 provides that the contents of electronic records ma\ be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.

Under Section 65B( 1) any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document if the conditions mentioned in this Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. The conditions in respect of a computer output related above, have 1 been stipulated under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act.

Question 24.
A, a client, says to B, an advocate, “I have committed a murder and want you to defend me”. Whether the advocate can disclose the aforesaid j communication to the court or to the police?
Answer:
As per Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no barrister, attorney, [ pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment. However, disclosure is permitted with his client’s express consent.

Accordingly, in the given case the communication of A to B cannot be disclosed by B.

Question 25.
Kamini informed Ajay in the year 2001 that she had committed theft of the jewellery of her neighbour. Thereafter, Kamini and Ajay were married on 4 2002. In the year 2003, criminal proceedings were instituted against Kamini r in respect of the theft of jewellery. Ajay is called to give evidence in the case. Decide whether Ajay can disclose the communication made to him by Kamini. [June 2010 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
As per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married. No such person shall be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person, who made it, or his representative, consents.

Thus, the communication made by Kamini or Ajay during married life is a privileged one and Ajay cannot be compelled or permitted to disclose the same in the capacity of a witness.

In this case, Kamini gave the information to Ajay in 2014, but they got married in 2015. Thus, communication is made ‘before marriage’ and not ‘during the marriage’. Hence, Ajay can give evidence and disclose the communication made to him by Kamini because Kamini communicated with Ajay before her marriage with Ajay.

Question 26.
There are some facts of which evidence cannot be given, though they are relevant. They are also referred to as ‘privileged communications’. Discuss briefly. [Dec 2014 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
There are some facts of which evidence cannot be given though they are relevant, such as facts coming under Sections 121 to 127, where evidence is prohibited under those sections.

They are discussed as follows:
1. Privilege of Judge or Magistrate [Section 121]: No Judge or Magistrate shall be compelled to answer any question as to his own conduct in Court or as to anything that has come to his knowledge in Court as a Judge
or
Magistrate. But he can be compelled to give evidence on a special order of Superior Court.

2. Communications during marriage [Section 122]: No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.

No such person shall be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person, who made it, or his representative, consents.

However, in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other disclosure of communication will be allowed.

3. Evidence as to affairs of State [Section 123]: No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State. However, with the permission of the officer at the head of the department evidence as to unpublished official records can be given.

4. Official communications [Section 124]: No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

5. Information as to the commission of offences [Section 125]: No Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue-Officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.

6. Professional communication [Section 126]: No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment. However, disclosure is permitted with his client’s express consent.

However, nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure:

  • Any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
  • Any fact observed showing that any crime or fraud has been com¬mitted since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.

Question 27.
The ‘Privileged Communications’ are based on Public Policy and a witness cannot be compelled to answer the same during the evidence in the Court or before any other authority. Explain in brief. [June 2019 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
There are some facts of which evidence cannot be given though they are relevant, such as facts coming under Sections 121 to 127, where evidence is prohibited under those sections.

They are discussed as follows:
1. Privilege of Judge or Magistrate [Section 121]: No Judge or Magistrate shall be compelled to answer any question as to his own conduct in Court or as to anything that has come to his knowledge in Court as a Judge
or
Magistrate. But he can be compelled to give evidence on a special order of Superior Court.

2. Communications during marriage [Section 122]: No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.

No such person shall be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person, who made it, or his representative, consents.

However, in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other disclosure of communication will be allowed.

3. Evidence as to affairs of State [Section 123]: No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State. However, with the permission of the officer at the head of the department evidence as to unpublished official records can be given.

4. Official communications [Section 124]: No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

5. Information as to the commission of offences [Section 125]: No Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue-Officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.

6. Professional communication [Section 126]: No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment. However, disclosure is permitted with his client’s express consent.

However, nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure:

  • Any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
  • Any fact observed showing that any crime or fraud has been com¬mitted since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.

Question 28.
Ragini told Rajendra in the year 2007 that she had committed theft of the jewellery of her neighbour Asha. Thereafter, Ragini and Rajendra were married in the year 2008. In the year 2009, criminal proceedings were instituted against Ragini in respect of the theft of the said jewellery. Rajendra is summoned to give evidence in the said criminal proceedings. Decide whether Rajendra can disclose the communication made to him by Ragini in the year 2007, in the criminal proceedings in respect of the theft of the jewellery. [June 2013 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
Provision: Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says communication between the husband and the wife during marriage is privileged and its disclosure cannot be enforced.

Facts:

  1. Ragini told Rajendra in the year 2007 that she had committed theft of j the jewellery of her neighbour Asha.
  2. Ragini and Rajendra were married in the year 2008.

Ref. Case Law: Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka In M.C. Verghese v. T J. Ponnam

Conclusion: Hence, such a communication cannot be treated as privileged information, and Rajendra can disclose such communication made to him by Ragini.

Question 29.
What is the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? [Dec 2008 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Estoppel [Section 115]: 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 between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Example: A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

The principle of Estoppel is based on the maxim ‘allegations Contratia non-estaudiendus i.e. a person alleging contrary facts should not be heard. It says that man cannot approbate and reprobate, or that a man cannot blow hot and cold, or that a man shall not say one thing at one time and later on say a different thing.

Question 30.
Write a short note on Rules relating to presumptions [Dec 2010 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
The court may presume the existence of certain facts [Section 114]: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

  1. Presumptions are inferences that are drawn by the court with respect to the existence of certain facts.
  2. When certain facts are presumed to be in existence the party in whose favour they are presumed to exist need not discharge the burden of proof with respect to it. This is an exception to the general rule that the party which alleges the existence of certain facts has the initial burden of proof but presumptions do away with this requirement.
  3. Presumptions can be defined as an affirmative or negative inference drawn about the truth or falsehood of a fact by using a process of prob¬able reasoning from what is taken to be granted.
  4. A presumption is said to operate where certain fact is taken to be in existence even there is no complete proof.
  5. A presumption is a rule where if one fact which is known as the primary fact is proved by a party then another fact which is known as the presumed fact is taken as proved if there is no contrary evidence of the same.
  6. The presumption is a rule which is used by judges and courts to draw inference from a particular fact or evidence unless such an inference is said to be disproved.

Presumptions can be classified into certain categories:

  • Presumptions of fact
  • Presumptions of law
  • Mixed Presumptions

Question 31.
Explain in brief ‘Principle of Estoppel’ under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Dec 2018 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
Estoppel [Section 115]: 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 between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Example: A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

The principle of Estoppel is based on the maxim ‘allegations Contratia non-estaudiendus i.e. a person alleging contrary facts should not be heard. It says that man cannot approbate and reprobate, or that a man cannot blow hot and cold, or that a man shall not say one thing at one time and later on say a different thing.

Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Questions and Answers

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *