← APP
Past Questions
Under the scheme of criminal procedure , non cognisable offences are
A)
Public wrongs
B)
Private wrongs
C)
Both public & private wrongs
D)
None of the above
In criminal jurisprudence, offences are broadly classified based on their nature and the severity of the wrong committed.
1. **Cognizable Offences**: These are generally serious crimes (e.g., murder, rape) that are considered 'public wrongs' because they affect the peace and security of society at large. In these cases, the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and start an investigation without a magistrate's order.
2. **Non-Cognizable Offences**: These are generally less serious crimes (e.g., simple assault, defamation) that are viewed as 'private wrongs'. They are considered to be primarily between the individuals involved rather than a direct threat to the public order. Consequently, the police cannot arrest without a warrant, and a magistrate's order is required to initiate an investigation.
Therefore, while cognizable offences are treated as public wrongs, non-cognizable offences are categorized as private wrongs.
Classification of offences is given in the Code of Criminal Procedure under
A)
Section 320
B)
The 1st Schedule
C)
Section 482
D)
The 2nd Schedule
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the classification of offences is detailed in the First Schedule. The First Schedule provides a comprehensive table that lists offences under the Indian Penal Code (and other special laws), specifying whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable, and which court has the jurisdiction to try the offence.
Analysis of other options:
- Section 320: This section deals with the 'Compounding of Offences' (offences that can be settled between parties).
- Section 482: This section pertains to the 'Inherent powers of the High Court' to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
- The 2nd Schedule: The CrPC does not utilize a Second Schedule for the classification of offences; the primary classification is housed in the First Schedule.
What is the minimum number of colours required to fill the spaces in the given diagram without any two adjacent spaces having the same colour?
A)
6
B)
5
C)
4
D)
3
Based on established principles in English Language, the correct and most appropriate choice is '4' (Option C).
Admissible evidence is thus that which is
A)
Relevant
B)
Not excluded by any rule of law or practice
C)
Either (a) or (b)
D)
Both (a) & (b)
In the law of evidence, 'Admissibility' is a legal concept that determines whether a piece of evidence can be received by the court. For evidence to be admissible, it must satisfy two primary criteria:
1. **Relevance (Option a):** The evidence must be logically and legally relevant to the facts in issue. Under the Indian Evidence Act, only facts that are relevant are admissible. Relevance is the 'threshold' test; if a fact is not relevant, it is generally inadmissible.
2. **Not Excluded by Law (Option b):** Even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it may still be inadmissible if a specific rule of law or practice excludes it. For example, hearsay evidence is generally irrelevant, but certain types of relevant evidence (like privileged communications between a lawyer and client or certain confessions to police) are specifically excluded by law despite their potential relevance.
Therefore, for evidence to be truly 'admissible,' it must be both relevant AND not barred by any exclusionary rule of law. Since both conditions must be met, the correct answer is 'Both (a) & (b)'.
Presumption as to the genuineness of gazettes in electronic form has been dealt with under
A)
Section 81 A of the Evidence Act
B)
Section 88A of the Evidence Act
C)
Section 90 A of the Evidence Act
D)
Section 73A of the Evidence Act.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contains specific provisions regarding presumptions. Section 88A was inserted to address the modern necessity of electronic records.
1. **Section 88A**: Specifically deals with the 'Presumption as to genuineness of electronic Gazette'. It states that when any document purports to be an electronic Gazette, and it is shown to have been published by the Government or a competent authority, the Court shall presume that such document is genuine.
2. **Why other options are incorrect**:
- **Section 81A**: Deals with the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies of foreign judicial records.
- **Section 90A**: Deals with the presumption as to documents electronically stored (specifically regarding the regularity of the manner in which they were produced), but it is a general provision for electronic records, not specifically for Gazettes.
- **Section 73A**: Deals with the comparison of signature, writing or thumb-impression with a digital signature/electronic record.
Oral evidence under section 60 of Evidence Act may be
A)
Direct only
B)
Hearsay
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Either (a) or (b)
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, explicitly mandates that oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct. This means that if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense; and if it refers to an opinion, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion.
- Option (a) is correct because the law strictly requires oral evidence to be direct.
- Option (b) is incorrect because 'Hearsay evidence' (evidence of something a witness heard from someone else) is generally inadmissible under the rule established in Section 60, except in specific exceptions like dying declarations or res gestae.
- Options (c) and (d) are incorrect because they include hearsay, which contradicts the statutory requirement of Section 60.
The plea of alibi is governed by which section of the Evidence Act?
A)
Section 12
B)
Section 11
C)
Section 13
D)
Section 14
The plea of 'alibi' (Latin for 'elsewhere') is a defense where the accused claims they were at a different place at the time the alleged offense was committed, making it physically impossible for them to be the perpetrator. While the term 'alibi' is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Indian Evidence Act, it is governed by Section 11. Section 11 deals with 'facts not otherwise relevant,' stating that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. Since the claim of being elsewhere is inconsistent with the fact that the accused committed the crime at a specific location, it falls squarely under the scope of Section 11. Options a (Section 12), c (Section 13), and d (Section 14) deal with other aspects of relevancy (such as facts in issue, facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, and facts supporting or rebutting inferences), but do not govern the plea of alibi.
Under which section of the Evidence Act opinion as handwriting is relevant
A)
Section 44
B)
Section 48
C)
Section 47
D)
Section 50
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 47 specifically deals with the 'Opinion as to handwriting'. It states that when the court has to consider any document produced as evidence, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to have been written is relevant.
Breakdown of other options:
- Section 44: Relates to the opinion of examiners skilled in science or art (Expert opinion), which is a general provision, whereas Section 47 is the specific provision for handwriting based on acquaintance.
- Section 48: Relates to the opinion as to handwriting when the person is not acquainted with the handwriting (comparing one piece of writing with another).
- Section 50: Relates to the opinion on relationship (e.g., marriage or blood relationship).
Therefore, the primary section that makes opinion as to handwriting relevant based on familiarity is Section 47.
Which of the following case is related to dying declaration ?
A)
Pakala Narayana Swami vrs emperor
B)
Queen vrs Abdullah
C)
Kaushal Rao vrs State of Bombay
D)
All of these
The question asks which of the listed cases are related to 'Dying Declarations' (Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act).
1. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939): This is a landmark Privy Council case which established that a statement made by a person describing circumstances of their death is admissible as a dying declaration, even if the person did not expect to die immediately at the time of making the statement. It clarified that the statement must relate to the 'cause' of death.
2. Queen v. Abdullah (1884): This case is frequently cited in the context of dying declarations to illustrate that a statement made by a person who is later found dead, describing circumstances that led to their death, is admissible under the law of evidence.
3. Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay: This case also deals with the evidentiary value and the reliability of dying declarations, specifically focusing on the mental fitness of the declarant and the corroboration required when the declaration is suspicious.
Since all three cases are significant precedents regarding the interpretation and application of dying declarations in Indian law, the correct option is 'All of these'.
The court laid down parameters for assisting the victims of rape in
A)
Chairman Railway Board vrs Chandrima Das
B)
Delhi Domestic Working Womens forum vrs UOI
C)
Radhu vrs State of Madhya Pradesh
D)
Vishaka & others Vrs State of Rajsthan
The correct answer is 'Chairman Railway Board vrs Chandrima Das'. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the rape of a woman by railway employees. The court emphasized the state's responsibility toward the victim and laid down parameters for providing compensation and assistance to victims of rape, recognizing that the violation of a woman's dignity is a violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Why other options are incorrect:
- b. Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum vrs UOI: This case primarily focused on the working conditions and rights of female domestic workers.
- c. Radhu vrs State of Madhya Pradesh: This case generally pertains to criminal law/sentencing and does not establish parameters for rape victim assistance.
- d. Vishaka & others Vrs State of Rajsthan: This is a seminal case that laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace, rather than focusing on assistance for victims of rape.
Law of evidence is
A)
Lex tallienis
B)
Lex fori
C)
Lex loci solutionis
D)
Lex situs
The law of evidence is governed by the principle of 'Lex fori', which is a Latin term meaning 'the law of the forum' or 'the law of the court'. In legal proceedings, this means that the procedural rules regarding the admissibility, relevance, and weight of evidence are determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the court is located, regardless of where the events giving rise to the litigation occurred.
Analysis of other options:
- a. Lex tallienis (Lex Talionis): Refers to the 'law of retaliation' (e.g., 'an eye for an eye'), which is an ancient principle of justice, not a rule of evidence.
- c. Lex loci solutionis: Refers to the 'law of the place of performance' (usually relating to contracts).
- d. Lex situs: Refers to the 'law of the place where the property is situated' (used primarily in disputes involving immovable property).
How much punishment may be awarded to an accused who is found guilty under a summary trial?
A)
Not exceeding two years
B)
Not exceeding one year
C)
Not exceeding six months
D)
Not exceeding three months
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), summary trials are designed for the speedy disposal of less serious offenses. According to Section 262(2) of the CrPC, no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in any trial for an offense which is tried summarily. This limitation ensures that summary trials are reserved for petty offenses. If the Magistrate feels that the nature of the case requires a more severe punishment, they may record a finding that the case is not fit for a summary trial and proceed to hear the case according to the regular summons or warrant procedure. Therefore, the maximum punishment that can be awarded in a summary trial is three months of imprisonment.
When A is accused of the murder of B, the relevant facts are
A)
A had a motive and opportunity to kill B
B)
A had made preparations by buying a knife
C)
After the murder A was seen running with blood stained knife in hand
D)
All of these
This question pertains to the 'Relevancy of Facts' under the Indian Evidence Act (and similar common law evidence frameworks).
1. Option (a) refers to 'Motive' and 'Opportunity'. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, any fact which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. Motive provides the 'why' and opportunity provides the 'how' or 'when', both of which are highly relevant in murder trials.
2. Option (b) refers to 'Preparation'. Again, under Section 8, the act of buying a knife (the weapon of offense) constitutes 'preparation' for the crime, making it a relevant fact.
3. Option (c) refers to 'Conduct'. Under Section 8, the conduct of any party to any proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue, is relevant. Being seen running away from the crime scene with a blood-stained weapon is 'subsequent conduct' that strongly points toward guilt.
Since all three scenarios (motive/opportunity, preparation, and conduct) are explicitly recognized as relevant facts under the law of evidence to prove the guilt of an accused, the correct answer is 'All of these'.
An anticipatory bail may be granted by
A)
Session Court
B)
High Court
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Granted by (a) subject to confirmation by Supreme Court
Anticipatory bail is governed by Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. According to this section, when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for direction that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail. Therefore, both the High Court and the Court of Session are empowered to grant anticipatory bail. Option (a) and (b) are individually correct, making option (c) the comprehensive correct answer. Option (d) is legally incorrect as there is no requirement for the Supreme Court to confirm a bail order granted by a Sessions Court.
One of the case deals with murder under Sec 300 IPC
A)
Virsa Singh vrs State of Punjab
B)
Pirthi vrs State of Haryana
C)
Chirangi vrs State
D)
State of Haryana vrs Raja ram
The case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 622) is a landmark judgment in Indian criminal law specifically dealing with Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In this case, the Supreme Court established the definitive test for determining 'intention' under Section 300 (Thirdly). The court ruled that if the prosecution proves that the accused intended to inflict a particular bodily injury, and that injury is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is immaterial whether the accused intended to cause death or knew that death would be the likely result. This case is the primary authority used to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide when a specific injury is inflicted. The other options provided are not the primary landmark authorities associated with the foundational interpretation of Section 300 IPC in the same manner as Virsa Singh.
On whom does the burden of proof lie:
A)
On prosecution
B)
On accused
C)
On both
D)
On discretion of court
In criminal jurisprudence, the fundamental principle is 'ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat' (the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies). Under the Indian Evidence Act (and similar common law systems), the general rule is that the burden of proving that the accused committed the crime lies entirely on the prosecution. This is based on the presumption of innocence ('innocent until proven guilty'). The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' While there are specific exceptions where the burden may shift to the accused (e.g., under Section 105 of the Evidence Act regarding general exceptions in the IPC, or specific statutes like the NDPS Act), the primary and overarching burden of proof always rests with the prosecution. Therefore, as a general rule, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
Whether a weapon is a deadly weapon is a question of
A)
Law
B)
Opinion of the Judge
C)
Fact
D)
Opinion of the expert witness
In the context of the Law of Evidence, a 'fact' includes anything to which a person is able to perceive or any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Whether a specific object (like a knife, a rod, or a tool) is a 'deadly weapon' depends on the physical characteristics of the object, the manner in which it was used, and the potential for it to cause death or grievous hurt. These are matters of evidence and observation to be proven through testimony or physical exhibition in court. It is not a 'question of law' because there is no statutory definition that automatically classifies every instance of a specific object as 'deadly' regardless of its condition or use. While a judge decides the issue, they do so by evaluating the 'facts' presented. Similarly, while an expert might give an opinion, the ultimate determination of whether the weapon was deadly in that specific instance is a finding of fact based on the evidence provided.
Arrest means
A)
Every compulsion or physical restraint
B)
Total restraint and complete deprivation of liberty
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Neither (a) nor (b)
In legal jurisprudence, specifically under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the term 'arrest' is not explicitly defined in a single sentence, but its meaning has been evolved through judicial interpretations.
1. Physical Restraint: Arrest involves the deprivation of a person's liberty by legal authority. This can be achieved through 'physical restraint' (like handcuffs or being held by the arm) or 'compulsion' (where the person submits to the custody of the officer without physical force).
2. Total Restraint: The essence of an arrest is the complete deprivation of the person's freedom of movement. Once a person is under arrest, they are no longer free to leave the presence of the arresting officer.
Therefore, 'arrest' encompasses both the act of applying compulsion/physical restraint to bring a person into custody and the resulting state of total restraint and deprivation of liberty. Since both options (a) and (b) describe different facets of the legal process of arrest, option (c) is the most comprehensive and correct answer.
A magistrate has the power under CrPC to direct the police to investigate into
A)
A non cognisable offence
B)
A cognisable offence
C)
Only a non cognisable offence, as in a cognisable offence the police is under a duty to investigate
D)
Both (a) & (b)
The power of a Magistrate to direct an investigation is primarily governed by Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. **Section 156(3) CrPC**: This section explicitly states that any Magistrate empowered under Section 156(1) may, either upon application by any person or suo motu, order such an investigation as he thinks fit. Since Section 156(1) pertains to the police's power to investigate 'cognisable cases', the Magistrate's power under 156(3) is limited to directing the investigation of cognisable offences.
2. **Non-Cognisable Offences**: For non-cognisable offences, the police cannot investigate without the order of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC. However, the nature of this 'order' under Section 155(2) is an authorization/permission to investigate, whereas the specific power to 'direct' or 'order' an investigation into a case (often used when police refuse to register an FIR) is the hallmark of Section 156(3) regarding cognisable offences.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- Option (a) is incorrect because the specific power to 'direct' an investigation as a mandate is associated with cognisable cases.
- Option (b) is correct as per Section 156(3).
- Option (c) is incorrect because while police have a duty to investigate cognisable offences, the Magistrate still retains the judicial power to direct them to do so if they fail to act.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the procedural mechanisms for cognisable and non-cognisable offences are distinct.
The law of evidence consists of
A)
Ordinary rules of reasoning
B)
Legal rules of evidence
C)
Rules of logic
D)
All of these
The law of evidence is a complex intersection of formal legal statutes and the intellectual processes used to determine truth.
1. **Legal rules of evidence (Option b):** This is the most direct component. It refers to the statutory laws (such as the Indian Evidence Act) that dictate what evidence is admissible in court, how it must be presented, and the burdens of proof.
2. **Rules of logic (Option c):** Evidence law relies heavily on deductive and inductive reasoning. For a fact to be proven, the court must apply logical sequences to connect the evidence presented to the conclusion reached.
3. **Ordinary rules of reasoning (Option a):** Courts often rely on 'common sense' or the 'natural course of events' to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the probability of an occurrence. This is often referred to as the 'prudent man' standard.
Since the determination of truth in a judicial proceeding requires the application of statutory law, formal logic, and practical reasoning, the law of evidence encompasses all three elements.
Unless he is produced before a magistrate an arrested person cannot be detained by the police for more than
A)
12 hours
B)
24 hours
C)
36 hours
D)
48 hours
The legal requirement for producing an arrested person before a magistrate is governed by both Constitutional law and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. Under Section 57 of the CrPC, it is explicitly stated that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without special order of a Magistrate, under house-arrest, or the confines of the prison, for a period exceeding twenty-four hours (excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arresting officer to the court of a Magistrate having jurisdiction).
2. This is further reinforced by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest.
Therefore, options a (12 hours), c (36 hours), and d (48 hours) are legally incorrect as they do not align with the statutory limit prescribed by the CrPC and the Constitution.
Mathura rape case is the other name for
A)
State of Punjab vrs Gurmit Singh
B)
State of Maharashtra vrs Prakash
C)
Tukaram vrs State of Maharashtra
D)
Sakshi vrs UOI
The 'Mathura rape case' refers to the landmark legal battle involving a young tribal girl named Mathura who was raped by two policemen in a police station in Maharashtra. The case is officially known as Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979). The acquittal of the accused by the Session Court and subsequently the High Court sparked nationwide protests, leading to a significant shift in Indian law. This case was the primary catalyst for the amendment of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, which shifted the burden of proof in certain rape cases (specifically those involving police officers) to the accused, introducing the concept of 'presumption of guilt' under specific circumstances.
Which of the following offence is compoundable?
A)
Offence under Section 498 IPC
B)
Offence under Section 403 IPC
C)
Offence under Section 298 IPC
D)
All of these
To determine which offence is compoundable, we refer to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which lists the offences that can be compounded (settled between the parties).
1. **Section 403 IPC (Dishonest misappropriation of property):** This offence is explicitly listed in the table provided under Section 320 of the CrPC as an offence that can be compounded with the permission of the court. Therefore, option (b) is correct.
2. **Section 498 IPC (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife):** This is a serious offence related to bigamy. It is not listed in the compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC. It is a non-compoundable offence.
3. **Section 298 IPC (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person):** This offence is generally non-compoundable as it involves a public wrong/religious sentiment and is not listed in the Section 320 CrPC table.
Since only Section 403 IPC is compoundable, option (d) 'All of these' is incorrect.
Which of the following statements can be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness as provided under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act?
A)
FIR
B)
Dying declaration, if the declarant survives
C)
Statement recorded under section 164 CrPC
D)
All of these
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with 'Corroboration'. It states that in any proceeding, where one of the parties tends to prove the veracity of a statement made by a witness, any other statement made by the same witness showing a consistency of circumstance can be used for that purpose.
1. FIR (First Information Report): While an FIR is not substantive evidence, it can be used under Section 157 to corroborate the testimony of the informant/witness if they testify in court, as it shows consistency of the account from the earliest possible stage.
2. Dying Declaration (if the declarant survives): If a person makes a statement believing they are about to die, but subsequently survives, that statement loses its character as a 'dying declaration' (Section 32) but becomes a 'previous statement' that can be used to corroborate the witness's testimony under Section 157.
3. Statement under Section 164 CrPC: Statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are formal records of a witness's account. When the witness testifies in court, this recorded statement is used to corroborate their testimony (or contradict it under Section 145).
Since all three options represent previous statements made by a witness that can be used to prove the consistency of their court testimony, option (d) is the correct answer.
Under the law of evidence as a general rule
A)
Opinion on a matter of fact is relevant but not on a matter of law
B)
Opinion on a matter of law is relevant but not on a matter of fact
C)
Opinion on a matter of fact and law both are relevant
D)
Opinion on a matter of fact and law both are irrelevant
Under the Law of Evidence (specifically the Indian Evidence Act, which governs the legal framework for the MPSC), the general rule is that the opinion of a witness is usually irrelevant. However, an exception is made under Sections 45 to 51, where the court may seek the opinion of 'experts' on specific matters of fact (such as foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or finger impressions) to assist the court in forming its own judgment.
1. Why 'Opinion on a matter of fact' is relevant: When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of science or art, the opinions of persons specially skilled in such fields are admissible as evidence to help the court determine a factual issue.
2. Why 'Opinion on a matter of law' is irrelevant: The interpretation and application of the law are the exclusive domain of the Judge (the court). A witness or an expert cannot provide an 'opinion' to the court on how the law should be interpreted or applied to the case, as that would be usurping the judicial function of the court.
Therefore, while expert opinions on facts are admissible, opinions on the law are not.
Page 1
← Prev
Next →