Law of Evidence (B.S.A.): Previous Year Papers Solved, 2022–2025

About these notes

These notes give exam-ready answers to the actual questions set in the six most recent Law of Evidence papers of National Law University Odisha (NLUO), from 2022 to 2025.

• The six papers contain 81 question items.
• Questions that repeat across papers are combined, so each topic is answered once. After combining repeats, there are 53 answers.
• The answers are arranged in 14 topic units.

How the answers are written

• Every answer is within 500 words. Short-note questions get shorter answers.
• Every answer is written under the B.S.A., 2023, with B.S.A. section numbers.
• Five of the six papers were set under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Their questions are reproduced as set, but the answers apply the B.S.A.
• The Indian Evidence Act is mentioned only where a case law needs it, and in the one question that asks for a comparison (answer 33).
• Procedure and offences are cited under the B.N.S.S. and the B.N.S.
• Only cases from the prescribed list of 46 case laws are cited. Where no listed case fits a question, the answer states the rule without a case.

The six papers

Short name used in these notes	Paper	Set under
Oct 2025 end-sem	End-Semester (Odd Sem), Semester III, exam 28.10.2025	B.S.A., 2023
Apr 2024 paper	End-Sem / Repeat / Make-up, Semester IV, exam 18.04.2024	Indian Evidence Act
Mar 2023 mid-sem	Mid-Semester (Even Sem), Semester IV, exam 28.03.2023	Indian Evidence Act
Feb 2023 repeat exam	Repeat / Improvement / Exempted, Semester V, exam 06.02.2023	Indian Evidence Act
Nov 2022 end-sem	End-Semester (Odd Sem), Semester V, exam 01.11.2022	Indian Evidence Act
Aug 2022 mid-sem	Mid-Semester (Odd Sem), Semester V, exam 23.08.2022	Indian Evidence Act

Most repeated topics

The following topics were counted as repeating across the six papers.

Topic	Asked in	Answer no.
Dying declaration (essentials, gestures, later death, FIR, survivor)	4 papers, 8 questions: Oct 2025, Apr 2024, Feb 2023, Nov 2022	27 to 31
Communication during marriage (privilege)	4 papers, 5 questions: Oct 2025, Apr 2024 (twice), Feb 2023, Nov 2022	42, 43
Hearsay	3 papers: Apr 2024, Mar 2023, Feb 2023	5
Character in criminal cases	3 papers: Oct 2025, Apr 2024, Nov 2022	50
Sniffer dog evidence	3 papers: Mar 2023, Feb 2023, Aug 2022	49
Confession to police and discovery	3 papers: Oct 2025, Feb 2023, Nov 2022	20
Conspiracy: things said in reference to common design	3 papers: Oct 2025, Apr 2024, Mar 2023	9, 10, 11
Electronic evidence	3 papers: Oct 2025, Feb 2023, Nov 2022	32, 33
Test identification parade	3 papers: Mar 2023, Feb 2023, Aug 2022	47, 48
Legitimacy and conclusive proof (B.S.A. Section 116)	3 papers: Apr 2024, Feb 2023, Nov 2022	38, 39
Res gestae	2 papers: Feb 2023, Aug 2022 (also applied in Apr 2024, Q1)	6, 7
Relevancy and admissibility	2 papers: Feb 2023, Aug 2022	1
Admissions by their maker, and the exceptions	2 papers: Mar 2023, Aug 2022	16, 17, 18
Tape-recorded conversation	2 papers: Feb 2023, Aug 2022	34
Burden of proof and onus of proof	2 papers: Feb 2023, Nov 2022	35
May presume, shall presume, conclusive proof	2 papers: Oct 2025, Nov 2022	37
Estoppel: son selling the father's land	2 papers: Apr 2024, Nov 2022	40
Promissory estoppel	2 papers: Apr 2024, Feb 2023	41
Accomplice and approver	2 papers: Oct 2025, Nov 2022	24, 25
Expert opinion	2 papers: Oct 2025, Nov 2022	26, 51

How the answers are organised

Unit	Answers	Questions covered
1. Basic concepts: evidence, relevancy and proof	1 to 4	Relevancy and admissibility; what is not evidence, and whether an affidavit is evidence; where the B.S.A. does not apply; proved, disproved and not proved
2. Hearsay and res gestae	5 to 8	Hearsay and its exceptions; res gestae (meaning, conditions, exception to hearsay); Ratanbai's phone call to the police; Ajita's statement to her classmate
3. Conspiracy, similar facts, alibi and judgments	9 to 15	Things said or done in reference to common design; Badri and Ramji (offer of a bribe to the Inspector); Bambi, Leo and the WhatsApp chats; similar facts evidence (general rule and exceptions); earlier shooting at C, and the mob; plea of alibi; whether the earlier judgment against B is relevant against C
4. Admissions	16 to 19	Admissions cannot be proved by their maker (rule and exceptions); the ship's captain and his log book; refusing to sell stolen goods below their value; Nadhini's diary (admission, account books and estoppel)
5. Confessions, accomplices and scientific tests	20 to 26	Confession to a police officer and the discovery rule; when confessions are admissible, and the value of a retracted confession; murmuring to oneself as a confession; confession to excise officers; statements to the investigating officer, approvers and accomplices compared; accomplice witness; narco-analysis, polygraph and brain mapping (the Selvi judgment), and the value of expert opinion
6. Dying declaration	27 to 31	Essentials, relevancy and conviction on it alone; a dying declaration made by gestures; statement to the doctor and Magistrate but death later from a heart attack; whether the victim's FIR can be a dying declaration; the maker of the statement survives
7. Electronic evidence and tape recordings	32 to 34	Admissibility of electronic records; changes in electronic evidence under the B.S.A.; admissibility of a tape-recorded conversation
8. Burden of proof and presumptions	35 to 39	Burden of proof and onus of proof; not heard of for seven years; may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof; legitimacy of children, and conclusive proof versus scientific proof; who is the father (A, B and C)
9. Estoppel	40 to 41	The father's land sold by the son; promissory estoppel
10. Privileged communications	42 to 43	Communication during marriage; Ramlal's letter to his wife
11. Witnesses and their examination	44 to 46	Chief, cross and re-examination; leading questions; child witness
12. Identification: identification parades and sniffer dogs	47 to 49	Test identification parade and its evidentiary value; when an identification parade is necessary (two situations); tracing the accused with a sniffer dog
13. Character and expert opinion	50 to 51	Relevancy of character in criminal cases; expert opinion as evidence
14. Oral and documentary evidence	52 to 53	Oral evidence; relevancy of a carbon copy of a document

Unit 1: Basic Concepts (Evidence, Relevancy and Proof)

1. Relevancy and admissibility (5 marks / 3 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q1(a) (5 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q3(e) (3 marks).

Question: "All admissible evidence is relevant, but all relevant evidence is not necessarily admissible." Comment in detail.

Also asked as: Briefly discuss the law relating to relevancy and admissibility, with relevant sections.

Issue

Relevancy and admissibility sound alike, but they are two different ideas. The statement has two halves, and each must be tested separately.

Relevant law

• Relevancy is about logical connection. Under Section 2(1)(k) of the B.S.A., one fact is relevant to another when it is connected with it in any of the ways the B.S.A. describes. Those ways are set out in Sections 3 to 50, for example facts forming part of the same transaction, motive and conduct, admissions, dying declarations, expert opinions and character.
• Admissibility is about law. It asks whether the court will actually allow a fact to be proved. A fact must first be relevant; even then, another rule of law may keep it out.
• Section 141: the judge shall admit evidence only if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant.

Point	Relevancy	Admissibility	Weight
Nature	Logic: logical connection between facts	Law: whether the court will allow the fact to be proved	The court's judgment
Source	Section 2(1)(k); the ways of connection in Sections 3 to 50	Rules of law, which may exclude even a relevant fact (Section 141 links admission to relevancy)	Probative value of the evidence
Question asked	Is the fact connected with the fact in issue?	Will the law let it be proved?	How much is it worth?

Testing the statement

First half ("all admissible evidence is relevant"): broadly true, because under Section 141 the judge admits evidence only if the fact, if proved, would be relevant. (One refinement, from Ram Bihari Yadav, is noted below.)

Second half ("all relevant evidence is not necessarily admissible"): clearly true. Many relevant facts are not admissible:

Relevant fact	Rule that keeps it out
A confession made to a police officer	Section 23 bars its proof against the accused
A communication between husband and wife during marriage (may be very relevant)	Protected by Section 128
Unpublished official records about affairs of State	Section 129 can keep them out
Hearsay (may be logically connected to the case)	Section 55 requires oral evidence to be direct
Oral evidence to vary the terms of a written contract	Excluded by Sections 94 and 95

Case law

Conclusion

2. What is not evidence, and is an affidavit evidence? (5 marks)

Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q1 (5 marks).

Question: Explain what is not evidence before a court of law. In this line, explain whether an affidavit can be said to be evidence of a fact.

Meaning of evidence: Section 2(1)(e)

Section 2(1)(e) of the B.S.A. defines evidence. There are only two kinds:

Kind	Meaning
Oral evidence	All statements, including statements given electronically, which the court permits or requires witnesses to make before it about the facts under inquiry
Documentary evidence	All documents, including electronic or digital records, produced for the inspection of the court

What is not evidence

Material	Why it is not evidence in the strict sense / how it may be used
Statement of the accused when the court questions him under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S.	It is not on oath and not tested by cross-examination. The court may consider it, but it is not evidence in the strict sense.
Confession of a co-accused	Outside the statutory definition of evidence (see Bhuboni Sahu below)
Statements made to the police during investigation	Section 181 of the B.N.S.S. allows them to be used only to contradict a witness (and, once so used, to explain matters in re-examination). The bar does not apply to a dying declaration under Section 26(a) of the B.S.A. or to a discovery statement under the proviso to Section 23(2) of the B.S.A.
First information report (FIR)	Not substantive evidence (evidence that proves a fact by itself). Normally it can only corroborate or contradict the person who made it, unless another rule applies, such as a dying declaration when the maker dies.
Pleadings, arguments of lawyers, and the judge's personal knowledge	Not evidence

Is an affidavit evidence?

By itself, an affidavit is not evidence under Section 2(1)(e), because:

1. Section 1(2) of the B.S.A. says the B.S.A. does not apply to affidavits presented to any court or officer.
2. An affidavit is made outside court.
3. The person making it is not cross-examined.

It becomes usable as evidence only when a law or an order of the court allows it. For example:

1. Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure lets a court order that a particular fact be proved by affidavit.
2. Order 18, Rule 4 requires the examination-in-chief (first questioning of a witness by his own side) in civil suits to be given on affidavit. The witness is then offered for cross-examination.
3. Section 332 of the B.N.S.S. allows evidence of a formal character to be given on affidavit, and the court may call the person for examination.

Conclusion

An affidavit is not evidence of a fact, unless a specific law or the court's order makes it so.

3. Where the B.S.A. does not apply (short note, 3.5 marks)

Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q4 (short note, 3.5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to what?

Section 1(2): application and exclusions

Section 1(2) of the B.S.A. says the B.S.A. applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including courts-martial. It then keeps two matters outside the B.S.A.:

1. Affidavits presented to any court or officer.
2. Proceedings before an arbitrator.

Bodies that are not courts

Since the B.S.A. applies only to judicial proceedings "in or before any Court", it does not strictly apply to bodies that are not courts, such as income tax authorities, departmental inquiries and many tribunals. They follow their own procedure, but they must still follow natural justice.

Family Courts

Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 lets a Family Court receive any evidence that helps it deal effectively with the dispute, whether or not it is otherwise admissible.

Summary table

Proceeding / body	Position
Judicial proceedings in or before any court, including courts-martial	B.S.A. applies (Section 1(2))
Affidavits presented to any court or officer	Excluded by Section 1(2)
Proceedings before an arbitrator	Excluded by Section 1(2)
Income tax authorities, departmental inquiries, many tribunals	Not courts; B.S.A. does not strictly apply, but natural justice must be followed (Dhakeswari Cotton Mills)
Contempt proceedings	Sui generis; strict rules of evidence do not apply, but procedure must be fair (R.K. Anand)
Family Courts	Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984: may receive any evidence that helps, whether or not otherwise admissible (Preeti Jain)

4. Proved, disproved and not proved (short note, 5 marks)

Apr 2024 paper, Q8(a) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note on: Proved, Disproved and Not Proved.

These three terms are defined in clauses (j), (c) and (i) of Section 2(1) of the B.S.A. They tell the court when a fact can be treated as established.

Term	Clause of Section 2(1)	Meaning
Proved	(j)	After considering the matters before it, the court either believes that the fact exists, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man (a sensible, careful person) ought, in the circumstances of the case, to act on the supposition that it exists
Disproved	(c)	The court either believes that the fact does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act on the supposition that it does not exist
Not proved	(i)	The fact is neither proved nor disproved; the court is left in doubt

Key features

1. The prudent man test. The law does not demand mathematical certainty. It asks for the kind of practical certainty a sensible person would act on in important matters of his own life.
2. "Matters before it" is wider than "evidence". The court may also consider presumptions, facts it takes judicial notice of, admissions, and the demeanour of witnesses.
3. Same definition, different degree of probability. The same definition applies in civil and criminal cases, but the degree of probability differs. In a civil case, a preponderance of probabilities (the more probable version) is enough. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. "Not proved" is not the same as "disproved". When a fact is not proved, the evidence was simply not enough. The party who carried the burden of proof loses on that point.

Unit 2: Hearsay and Res Gestae

5. Hearsay evidence and its exceptions (5 marks / 3.5 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 3 papers: Apr 2024 paper, Q8(b) (5 marks); Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q4(a) (3.5 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q2 (5 marks).

Question: "Hearsay evidence is not admissible." Explain. What are the exceptions to this general rule?

Also asked as: Short notes on "Hearsay Evidence" and on "Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence".

Meaning of hearsay

The rule: Section 55

Under Section 55 of the B.S.A., oral evidence must in all cases be direct:

• If a fact could be seen, the witness must say he saw it.
• If it could be heard, he must say he heard it.
• An opinion must come from the person who holds it.

Why hearsay is excluded

1. The original speaker is not on oath.
2. He cannot be cross-examined, so his honesty, memory and perception cannot be tested.
3. The court cannot watch his demeanour.
4. A story changes as it passes from one person to another, and made-up evidence would be easy.

Exceptions

Hearsay is admitted in these situations:

Exception	B.S.A. provision
Res gestae: statements forming part of the same transaction	Section 4
Admissions and confessions of a party	Sections 15 to 25
Statements of persons who are dead, cannot be found, or cannot be brought as witnesses without unreasonable delay or expense (dying declarations fall here)	Section 26
Evidence given in an earlier judicial proceeding by a witness who is now dead or cannot be found	Section 27
Entries in books of account, public records, and statements in published maps, Acts and law books	Sections 28 to 32
Opinions of experts in published treatises, when the author is dead or cannot be found	First proviso to Section 55
Statements that accompany and explain conduct	Section 6, Explanation 1
Statements showing a state of mind or body, such as a sick person describing his symptoms	Section 12

Case law

Conclusion

6. Res gestae: meaning, conditions, and exception to hearsay (3 + 3 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q2(a) and (b) (3 + 3 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q3(c) (3 marks). Also applied in the Apr 2024 paper, Q1 (answer 7).

Question: (a) Explain the doctrine of res gestae with the help of a case law. What are the conditions to be fulfilled in order to make a statement relevant under res gestae?

(b) Explain how res gestae becomes an exception to the rule that "hearsay evidence is no evidence". Explain with the help of illustration and case law.

Also asked as: Res gestae with examples.

Meaning: Section 4

The idea is simple. An event does not happen in isolation. Words and acts that happen with it, or immediately before or after it, explain it. Such words come out naturally, before there is time to invent a story.

Conditions

1. Same transaction: the statement or act must relate to the fact in issue and form part of the same transaction.
2. Contemporaneous: it must be made during the event, or so shortly before or after it that it forms part of it.
3. Spontaneous: there must be no time or chance to make up a story. A statement made after a gap, as a narration of a past event, is not res gestae.
4. Maker and witness: the maker may be the victim, the accused or a bystander, but the witness in court must have personally seen or heard it.

How res gestae is an exception to hearsay

Normally a witness cannot repeat another person's words to prove that they are true. But when the words are part of the event itself:

• The witness who heard them is giving direct evidence of something he heard.
• The spontaneity of the words is treated as a guarantee of their truth.
• So the words are admitted even though the speaker is not called.

Case law

Conclusion

7. Ratanbai's phone call to the police (7.5 marks)

Apr 2024 paper, Section A, Q1 (7.5 marks).

Question: Ratanbai called the police station in distress. The call was received by police constable Ram Khelawan, who stated that he heard these words over the phone: "He is going to kill me... please save." Before Ram Khelawan could ask anything more, the call got disconnected abruptly. The police traced the location and reached Ratanbai's place in no time, only to find that Ratanbai had been shot dead. The police arrested her husband, Lukkhalal. Lukkhalal said that the gunshot was fired accidentally and he had no intention to kill his wife. Will the statement of Ram Khelawan be relevant? Decide, explaining the relevant provisions and case law, if any.

Short answer

Yes. Ram Khelawan's evidence of the words he heard is relevant and admissible. It comes in under two provisions of the B.S.A.: Section 4 (res gestae) and Section 26(a) (dying declaration).

Issue

Ram Khelawan personally heard the words. So, on the fact that the words were spoken, he is a direct witness under Section 55. The real question is whether Ratanbai's words can be used to prove what was happening to her.

Relevant law

Provision	Use in this problem
Section 55, B.S.A.	Ram Khelawan is a direct witness to the fact that the words were spoken
Section 4, B.S.A. (res gestae)	The words form part of the same transaction as the shooting
Section 26(a), B.S.A. (dying declaration)	The words of the deceased relate to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in her death
Section 18, B.N.S. (accident)	The general exception pleaded by Lukkhalal
Section 108, B.S.A.	Burden of proving the general exception lies on the accused; the court presumes its absence
Section 63, B.S.A.	Certificate needed to prove call records

Ground 1: Res gestae (Section 4)

• The words were spoken during the attack itself, while the danger was happening.
• The call was cut off abruptly, and the police arrived very soon to find her shot dead.
• The statement was contemporaneous and spontaneous; there was no time to invent anything.
• So it forms part of the same transaction as the shooting and is relevant under Section 4.

Ground 2: Dying declaration (Section 26(a))

• Ratanbai is dead, and the cause of her death is in question.
• Her words relate to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death.
• Under Section 26(a), such a statement is relevant even if she did not expect to die, and it may be oral.
• So it is also admissible as a dying declaration.

Effect on the defence of accident

• Accident is a general exception under Section 18 of the B.N.S.
• Under Section 108 of the B.S.A., the burden of proving it is on Lukkhalal, and the court presumes that it is absent.
• Ratanbai's words, "He is going to kill me", show that someone was threatening to kill her just before the shot. They strongly go against the story of an accidental firing.

Points of caution

1. Identity of "he": she said "he", not "my husband". The prosecution must connect "he" with Lukkhalal through other evidence, such as his presence in the house and the gun. Here, Lukkhalal himself admits that he fired the shot, so identity is hardly in dispute.
2. Source of the call: the call should be shown to have come from Ratanbai's phone, for example through call records, proved with the certificate required by Section 63.

Decision

Unit 2: Hearsay and Res Gestae (continued)

Q8. Ajita's statement to her classmate (8 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q3 (8 marks).

Question: Ajita was sexually assaulted by Sukhdev. The next day, she narrated the entire incident to a classmate, specifically requesting that it not be disclosed to anyone, including her guardians. She did not inform anyone else about the incident at that time. After a few months, Ajita decided to initiate legal action against Sukhdev and intends to use the statements she made to her classmate as evidence. Discuss the relevancy and admissibility of these statements in court.

Issue

Whether Ajita's statement to her classmate, made the day after the assault and under a request for secrecy, is relevant and admissible in her later legal action against Sukhdev, and if so, for what purpose.

Starting point: hearsay when used to prove the assault

• If the statement is used to prove that the assault happened, it is hearsay, because the classmate did not see the assault.
• So it cannot be substantive evidence (evidence that proves a fact by itself).
• Under the B.S.A. it can still be useful in limited ways: as conduct (Section 6) and as corroboration (Section 160).

Use 1: As conduct under Section 6

• Section 6(2) makes relevant the conduct of the person against whom an offence was committed.
• Explanation 1: "conduct" does not include mere statements, unless they accompany and explain acts.
• Illustration (j) gives the key rule:
  • Where the question is whether A was raped, the fact that shortly after the alleged rape she made a complaint relating to the crime, and the circumstances and terms of that complaint, are relevant.
  • But if, without making a complaint, she merely said that she had been raped, that is not relevant as conduct.

Application.

• Ajita spoke the next day, but asked her classmate to keep it secret from everyone, including her guardians.
• She was not seeking any action. So it looks more like a confidential narration than a complaint. If so, it is not relevant as conduct.
• But if the court treats it as a complaint made soon after the incident, it is relevant under Section 6.

Use 2: As corroboration under Section 160

• Section 160: a former statement of a witness about the same fact, made at or about the time when the fact took place, may be proved to corroborate (support) her testimony in court.
• Illustration (j) to Section 6 itself says that such a statement may be relevant as corroborative evidence under Section 160.

Application.

• Ajita spoke the next day. The court may treat this as "at or about the time", especially if it was her first real chance to speak.
• So when Ajita gives evidence, her classmate can be called to prove that Ajita told her the same account the next day.
• This shows consistency, but does not independently prove the assault.

Not res gestae (Section 4)

The statement was made the next day, as a narration of a past event. It is therefore not part of the same transaction under Section 4.

Other points

1. No privilege from the request for secrecy. The law protects only certain relationships, such as spouses (Section 128) and advocate and client (Section 132). So the classmate can be made to testify.
2. Not a dying declaration under Section 26, because Ajita is alive.
3. Delay. The delay of a few months is not fatal by itself, but Ajita should be ready to explain it.

Possible use of the statement	Provision	Result on these facts
Substantive proof that the assault happened	Hearsay rule	No: the classmate did not see the assault
Conduct of the victim	Section 6(2), Explanation 1, Illustration (j)	Only if the court treats it as a complaint; a confidential narration is not conduct
Corroboration of Ajita's testimony	Section 160	Yes, if the next day is treated as "at or about the time"; main use
Res gestae	Section 4	No: next-day narration of a past event
Privileged communication	Sections 128 and 132	No: a classmate is not a protected relationship
Dying declaration	Section 26	No: Ajita is alive

Conclusion

The statement cannot prove the assault on its own. Its main use is to corroborate Ajita's own evidence under Section 160. If the court treats it as a complaint, it is also relevant as conduct under Section 6.

Unit 3: Conspiracy, Similar Facts, Alibi and Judgments

Q9. Things said or done in reference to common design (short note, 4 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q9(d) (short note, 4 marks). The same topic is tested through problems in the Apr 2024 paper (Q2, solved as Q11 below) and the Mar 2023 mid-sem (Q1, solved as Q10 below).

Question: Write a short note: Things said or done in reference to common design.

The rule: Section 8 of the B.S.A.

Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong (a civil wrong for which a suit can be filed), then anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention is a relevant fact against each of them.

• It covers things said or done after the time when any one of them first formed that intention.
• It is relevant for two purposes:
  1. to prove that the conspiracy existed; and
  2. to show that a particular person was a party to it.

Basis: agency

Conditions

1. There must first be reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy exists, shown by some independent evidence.
2. The statement or act must be in reference to the common intention.
3. It must come after the intention was first formed, and while the conspiracy is still going on.
4. It is then relevant against every conspirator, even one who did not know of that particular act, or who joined later or left earlier. The illustration to Section 8, about a conspiracy to wage war against the State, shows this.

Cases

Q10. Badri and Ramji: offer of a bribe to the Inspector (3 + 3 marks)

Asked in: Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q1(a) and (b) (3 + 3 marks).

Question: Ramji Sonar is a goldsmith with a shop in village Naogachia, between the police station and the quarters of the police Inspector. The first accused, Badri, runs a school about 50 yards away. On 22 August 1953, the Inspector seized ornaments and molten silver, suspected to be stolen, which six strangers were melting with implements said to be supplied by Ramji. Ramji was arrested and released on bail the same day. On 24 August 1953, at about 7.30 pm, both accused stopped the Inspector on the road, and Ramji asked him to hush up the case for a valuable consideration. The Inspector told them he could not talk on the road and they should come to the police station, and he reported the matter to his superior officer. On 31 August, Badri came to the police station and offered the Inspector a packet wrapped in old newspaper containing 500 rupees. He said that Ramji had sent the money through him, in pursuance of their talk of 24 August, as consideration for hushing up the case. Several police officers and a local merchant were present. The Inspector drew up the first information report, prepared a seizure list and arrested Badri. Both were tried and convicted.

(a) Identify the fact in issue and the relevant facts.

(b) Was Badri's statement of 31 August 1953, that he had been sent by Ramji with the money to be offered as a bribe, admissible against Ramji?

These facts are taken from Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, where the two accused were tried for conspiring to bribe a public servant.

Part (a): Facts in issue and relevant facts

Facts in issue:

1. Whether Badri and Ramji agreed together to bribe the Inspector to hush up the case against Ramji.
2. Whether Badri offered 500 rupees to the Inspector as a bribe on 31 August 1953.

Relevant facts:

Relevant fact	Why it is relevant	Section
The pending case against Ramji after the seizure	Shows motive	Section 6
The meeting of 24 August, when both accused stopped the Inspector and Ramji asked him to hush up the case	Preparation and conduct; also a thing said in reference to the common design	Sections 6 and 8
The Inspector's report to his superior	Explains his later conduct and the arrangements at the police station	Section 7
Badri's visit on 31 August with the money, and his words that Ramji had sent it	Part of the transaction of offering the bribe; also relevant as a statement in reference to the common design	Sections 4 and 8
The presence of other officers and a merchant, the seizure list and the first information report	Support the proof of the offer	-

Part (b): Is Badri's statement admissible against Ramji?

Answer: Yes, it is admissible.

Law. Section 8 of the B.S.A. applies where there is reasonable ground to believe that two persons have conspired together. Then anything said or done by one of them in reference to their common intention is relevant against the other.

Application.

• The meeting of 24 August gives reasonable ground to believe that Badri and Ramji had conspired.
• Badri's words on 31 August were spoken while carrying out that very plan, at the moment of offering the bribe.
• The conspiracy was still alive. So his statement is relevant against Ramji.

Q11. Bambi, Leo and the WhatsApp chats (7.5 marks)

Asked in: Apr 2024 paper, Section A, Q2 (7.5 marks).

Question: Bambi, the wife of Akash, and her paramour Leo conspired to murder Akash. They hired Dogra to commit the murder. Dogra was caught red-handed murdering Akash. Bambi, Leo and Dogra were prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder. The main evidence of the conspiracy between Bambi and Leo consisted of certain WhatsApp chats, in which they expressed their deep love for each other and referred to "money" and "means", most probably in connection with the murder. Bambi also made statements before the Magistrate after she had been arrested on the charge of conspiracy. Her WhatsApp chats and her statements to the Magistrate were admitted in evidence against Leo, as things said and written by a conspirator in reference to their common intention. In the light of this situation, can the WhatsApp chats and the statement to the Magistrate be treated as relevant evidence? Support your answer with the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and case laws.

Issue

Whether (1) the WhatsApp chats and (2) Bambi's post-arrest statement to the Magistrate are relevant against Leo as things said or written by a conspirator in reference to the common intention.

Relevant law

• These facts mirror Mirza Akbar v. Emperor.
• The law is Section 8 of the B.S.A.: where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention is relevant against each of them.
• The basis is that conspirators act as each other's agents while the plan is alive.

1. The WhatsApp chats are relevant

• The chats were written while the plan to kill Akash was being made.
• So they are things "written" by a conspirator in reference to the common intention, while the conspiracy was going on.
• They are relevant against Leo under Section 8, once the court finds reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed.
• Leo's own messages are also admissions against him (Sections 15 and 16).

Two cautions:

1. Meaning. The chats speak of love, "money" and "means" without naming the murder. So their meaning must be read with other evidence, such as the hiring of Dogra.
2. Electronic records. Printouts or screenshots are admissible only with a certificate under Section 63(4) of the B.S.A. Here the phones belong to the accused, so the prosecution will usually prove the chats through the seized phones with expert evidence, or through copies with the certificate.

2. Bambi's statement to the Magistrate is not admissible against Leo under Section 8

• Bambi made it after the murder and after her arrest.
• By then the conspiracy had ended. It was not said in furtherance of a plan still being carried out.
• It was only a narrative of past events.

Can the statement come in any other way?

• If it is a confession, Section 24 lets the court "take into consideration" a confession against a co-accused tried jointly for the same offence.
• But such a confession is weak. It can only lend assurance to other evidence.
• Against Bambi herself, it can be used fully if it is voluntary and properly recorded.

Evidence	When made	Relevant against Leo under Section 8?	Other use
WhatsApp chats	During the conspiracy, while the plan was being made	Yes, if the court finds reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy existed and the chats are properly proved	Leo's own messages are admissions (Sections 15 and 16); proof through the seized phone or a copy with a Section 63(4) certificate
Bambi's statement to the Magistrate	After the murder and after her arrest	No: the conspiracy had ended; only a narrative of past events	If a confession, at most weak supporting material against Leo under Section 24; fully usable against Bambi if voluntary and properly recorded

Conclusion

The chats are relevant against Leo under Section 8, if properly proved. Bambi's post-arrest statement is not, and at most it is weak supporting material under Section 24.

Q12. Similar facts evidence: the general rule and its exceptions (8 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q4 (8 marks).

Question: "Similar facts evidence is not evidence" is the general rule. Discuss the rationale behind this general rule and explain the exceptions to it under the B.S.A.

Meaning

The general rule

• Such evidence is not relevant. A person is tried for what he did on this occasion, not for his past.
• Section 3 of the B.S.A. allows evidence only of facts in issue and relevant facts.
• Section 49: the bad character of an accused is irrelevant, except in reply to evidence of his good character.

Rationale for the rule

1. Logically weak. That a man did something once does not prove that he did it again.
2. Unfairly prejudicial. The court may convict because of the past, not because of proof in the present case.
3. Side issues. It raises side issues about old events, which waste time and confuse the real issue.
4. Surprise. It takes the other side by surprise, as no one can defend every past act.

The exceptions

Similar facts become relevant when they prove more than a mere tendency.

1. Section 12: state of mind

• Facts showing intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness or ill-will are relevant when that state of mind is in issue.
• Illustration (a): a person found with many other stolen articles along with the one in question may be shown to have known that they were stolen.
• Illustration (i): to show A's intent in shooting at B, the fact that A earlier shot at B may be proved.
• Explanation 1: the state of mind must be shown in reference to the particular matter, not generally. So, under illustration (o), A's habit of shooting at people is irrelevant.
• Explanation 2: a previous conviction is relevant where the previous offence is relevant under this section.

2. Section 13: accident or intention

• When the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that it formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person was concerned, is relevant.
• Illustration (a): where a man's insured houses caught fire one after another, with a claim after each fire, these facts are relevant as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

3. Sections 6 and 7: connected acts

• Earlier connected acts may also be relevant as motive, preparation or conduct (Section 6), or to prove identity (Section 7).

4. Section 49: bad character

• Section 49 itself allows evidence of bad character, including a previous conviction, when the accused first gives evidence of his good character, or when bad character is itself a fact in issue.

Exception	Section	What the similar fact proves
State of mind	Section 12	Intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness or ill-will, in reference to the particular matter
Accident or intention	Section 13	A series of similar occurrences showing the act was not accidental
Motive, preparation, conduct	Section 6	Earlier connected acts as motive, preparation or conduct
Identity	Section 7	Earlier connected acts that identify the person
Bad character	Section 49	Admissible in reply to evidence of good character, or where bad character is itself a fact in issue

Q13. Is the fact relevant? Earlier shooting at C, and the mob (3 marks)

Asked in: Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q1(b) (3 marks).

Question: Point out whether in the following cases the facts sought to be proved are relevant.

(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to prove A's intent, the prosecution wants to prove the fact that A had earlier shot at C.

(ii) A is tried for rioting and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The prosecution wants to prove that the mob was shooting.

Part (i): The earlier shooting at C

Law.

• Section 12 of the B.S.A. makes relevant facts showing intention, when intention is in issue.
• Illustration (i): if A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him, the fact that A had previously shot at B may be proved to show his intent.
• Explanation 1 to Section 12: a fact relevant to show a state of mind must show it "not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question".
• Illustration (o): the fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.

Application.

• Here the earlier shooting was at C, a different person.
• By itself, it shows only a general tendency to violence. It is not relevant to prove A's intention to kill B.

When it would become relevant. Only if it is connected with the shooting at B, for example:

1. both shootings are part of the same transaction (Section 4); or
2. the attack on C shows a motive or plan aimed at B (Section 6); or
3. if A says that the shooting at B was an accident, a series of similar shootings may become relevant under Section 13 to show that it was not accidental.

Conclusion: Not relevant, unless connected with the shooting at B in one of these ways.

Part (ii): The mob was shooting

Answer: Relevant.

• A marched at the head of the mob. What the mob did while he led it forms part of the same transaction as the rioting (Section 4).
• It also explains the nature of that transaction. Illustration (f) to Section 7 of the B.S.A. covers this: where A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob, the cries of the mob are relevant as explaining the nature of the transaction.
• The acts of the mob, such as shooting, are relevant for the same reason. They show that the assembly was armed and violent, which is central to a charge of rioting.

Fact sought to be proved	Relevant?	Provision
A earlier shot at C (to prove intent to kill B)	No, by itself; only a general tendency	Section 12, Explanation 1, Illustration (o); relevant only if connected under Section 4, 6 or 13
The mob A was leading was shooting	Yes	Section 4 (same transaction); Section 7, Illustration (f) (explains the nature of the transaction)

Q14. Relevancy of the plea of alibi (short note, 3 marks)

Asked in: Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q4(d) (short note, 3 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Relevancy of the plea of alibi.

Meaning

Relevancy: Section 9

• Section 9 of the B.S.A. makes relevant facts which are inconsistent with a fact in issue, or which make its existence highly probable or improbable.
• Illustration (a): where the question is whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day, the fact that on that day A was at Ladakh is relevant.

Burden: Section 106

• Under Section 106 of the B.S.A., the burden of proving a particular fact is on the person who wants the court to believe it.
• An illustration to it: if B wishes the court to believe that he was elsewhere at the time, he must prove it.
• So the accused must prove his alibi.

How courts treat the plea

1. Alibi should be raised at the earliest stage and proved by strong, reliable evidence. A late alibi looks like an afterthought.
2. The accused must show that he was so far away that his presence at the scene was impossible or highly improbable.
3. The prosecution must first prove its case. If the alibi fails, that alone does not prove guilt.
4. If the alibi evidence creates a reasonable doubt, the accused gets the benefit of it.

Q15. Is the earlier judgment against B relevant against C? (5 marks)

Asked in: Apr 2024 paper, Section B, Q4 (5 marks).

Question: A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife. B denies that C is A's wife, but the court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A's lifetime. C says that she never was A's wife. Is the earlier judgment against B relevant as against C? Decide, explaining the provisions and case law, if any, on the relevancy of earlier judgments of courts of justice under the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer in short

No. The earlier judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.

Relevant law: Sections 34 to 38 of the B.S.A.

Section	Kind of judgment	Effect
Section 34	Previous judgment that bars a second suit or trial (as in res judicata or a second prosecution for the same offence)	Relevant
Section 35	Final judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction: judgments in rem (binding on the whole world)	Conclusive proof of the legal character they confer, declare or take away
Section 36	Judgments relating to matters of a public nature	Relevant, but not conclusive
Section 37	All other judgments	Irrelevant, unless the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of the B.S.A.
Section 38	Any relevant judgment	A party may show that it was given by a court without jurisdiction, or was obtained by fraud or collusion

Reason behind Section 37: fairness

• An ordinary judgment binds only the parties to it.
• C was not a party to the adultery case. She had no chance to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses on whether she was A's wife.
• A finding made in her absence cannot be used against her.

Application

• The conviction of B is a judgment in personam (binding only between the parties).
• It is not a matrimonial judgment under Section 35 declaring C's status.
• It does not concern a matter of a public nature under Section 36.
• So the prosecution must prove the marriage of A and C afresh, by independent evidence.

When such a judgment would be relevant

Only if its existence were itself a fact in issue, or relevant under some other section.

Conclusion

B's conviction is a judgment in personam falling under Section 37. C was not a party to it, so it is irrelevant as against her, and her marriage to A must be proved by independent evidence.

Unit 4: Admissions

Q16. Admissions cannot be proved by their maker: the rule and its exceptions (4 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q3(a) (4 marks); Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q3(a) (4 marks).

Question: Admissions may be used against the person who makes them or his representative in interest, but cannot be used by the person who makes them for his own use. Explain. What are the exceptions to this general rule?

Also asked as: Admissions cannot be proved by the persons making them. What are the exceptions to this general rule?

Meaning of admission

The general rule: Section 19

• Admissions are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest (a person who steps into his shoes, like an heir).
• But they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them, or by his representative in interest.

Rationale

• A statement against one's own interest is likely to be true, because people do not usually say things that harm themselves.
• A statement in one's own favour is self-serving. If it were allowed, anyone could create evidence for himself in advance.

Exceptions: when the maker himself can prove his admission

1. Statement that would be relevant if the maker were dead. When the admission is of such a nature that, if the maker were dead, it would be relevant between third persons under Section 26.
   • Illustration (b): a ship's captain may prove his own log book entries.
   • Illustration (c): an accused may prove the place and date written on his own letter, to show that he was elsewhere on that day.
2. Statement of a state of mind or body. When it states the existence of a state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when that state existed, and is accompanied by conduct that makes its falsehood improbable.
3. Relevant otherwise than as an admission. When it is relevant on another ground, for example as res gestae or as conduct.
   • Illustration (d): a person accused of receiving stolen goods may prove that he refused to sell them below their value, because this explains his conduct.

Exception	Condition	Illustration / example
1. Relevant as if the maker were dead	Would be relevant between third persons under Section 26 if the maker were dead	Ship captain's log book (ill. (b)); place and date on the accused's own letter (ill. (c))
2. State of mind or body	Made at or about the time the state existed, and accompanied by conduct making its falsehood improbable	"I think this note is genuine", followed by depositing it in the bank
3. Relevant otherwise than as an admission	Relevant on another ground, such as res gestae or conduct	Refusal to sell allegedly stolen goods below their value (ill. (d))

Unit 4: Admissions (continued)

17. The ship's captain and his log book (2 marks)

Asked in: March 2023 mid-semester examination, Q3(b).

Question: A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business, showing observations alleged to have been made by him from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. Can A be allowed to prove these statements recorded by him in his own favour?

Short answer: Yes. A may prove the entries in his log book.

Issue

Whether a person can prove a statement recorded by himself that is in his own favour.

Relevant law

• General rule (Section 19 of the B.S.A.): a person cannot prove his own admissions in his favour.
• Exception (1) to Section 19: the maker may prove his own statement when, if he were dead, it would be relevant between third persons under Section 26.
• Section 26(b): makes relevant statements made by such a person in the ordinary course of business, especially entries in books kept in the ordinary course of business.

Application

• The captain's log is a book kept in the ordinary course of his work, recording daily observations.
• If he were dead, these entries would be relevant under Section 26(b).
• So, under exception (1) to Section 19, he may prove them in his own favour.

Why the law allows it: routine entries, made day by day before any dispute arose, are likely to be true. The court will still decide how much weight to give them.

Conclusion

A can prove the entries in his log book in his own favour.

18. Refusing to sell stolen goods below their value (1 mark)

Asked in: August 2022 mid-semester examination, Q3(b).

Question: A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their market price. Is this evidence admissible? Give reasons for your answer.

Short answer: Yes, it is admissible.

Relevant law

• This is illustration (d) to Section 19 of the B.S.A.
• The statement is in A's own favour, and normally a person cannot prove his own admissions (Section 19).
• Exception (3) to Section 19: the maker may prove a statement that is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
• Section 6: conduct influenced by a fact in issue is relevant.

Application

• A's refusal to sell below value is his conduct, and his statement explains that conduct.
• A person who knows that goods are stolen usually wants to get rid of them quickly and cheaply.
• Refusing to sell them cheap suggests that he honestly believed they were his to sell at a fair price.
• So the evidence bears on his knowledge, which is the fact in issue.

Conclusion

The evidence is admissible. The court will decide how much weight to give it.

Point	Exception (1) to Section 19	Exception (3) to Section 19
When the maker may prove his own statement	When, if he were dead, it would be relevant between third persons under Section 26	When it is relevant otherwise than as an admission
Illustration to Section 19	Illustration (b): the captain's log book (Question 17)	Illustration (d): refusing to sell stolen goods below value (Question 18)
Route to relevancy	Section 26(b): entries in books kept in the ordinary course of business	Section 6: conduct influenced by a fact in issue

19. Nadhini's diary: admission, account books and estoppel (8 marks)

Asked in: October 2025 end-semester examination (B.S.A. paper), Q6.

Question: Nadhini, an auditor, used to record all her financial transactions in her personal diary. On 10 October 2025, she noted that she owed one lakh rupees to Rajesh. Later, Rajesh filed a money suit against Nadhini, who denied owing this amount. Rajesh intends to submit Nadhini's diary as evidence to prove his claim. Discuss the evidentiary value of the diary entries, including whether they can be treated as proof of the debt, under what circumstances such personal records are admissible in court, and whether the doctrine of estoppel would apply in this case.

Short answer: Nadhini's diary entry can be used against her as an admission. It is good evidence of the debt, but not conclusive proof. Estoppel does not apply.

Issues

1. Is the diary entry an admission?
2. Is it proof of the debt?
3. When are personal records and account books admissible?
4. Does estoppel apply?

1. The entry is an admission

• Section 15 of the B.S.A. defines an admission as a statement, oral, documentary or electronic, which suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
• Section 16: a statement by a party to the proceeding is an admission.
• Nadhini is the defendant. Her note that she owed one lakh rupees to Rajesh points to the debt, which is the fact in issue.
• Section 19: an admission may be proved against its maker. So Rajesh can prove Nadhini's own entry against her, once it is proved to be hers.

2. Is it proof of the debt?

• Section 25: admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted.
• Nadhini can explain the entry. She may show that:
  • it was a mistake;
  • the amount was later repaid; or
  • it related to something else.
• If she cannot explain it believably, the court may rely on it, along with other evidence, and decree the suit.
• An entry made in a private diary, against her own interest and before any dispute, carries real weight.

3. Personal records and account books

• Section 28: entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, but they alone cannot charge any person with liability.
• A personal diary may not even be such a book.
• But when the entry is used against its own maker, it works as an admission, and the limit in Section 28 does not stop that use.

• Section 26(b) and (c): personal records of a person who is dead or cannot be found may also come in, as business entries or as statements against interest.
• That route is not needed here, because Nadhini is alive.

4. Estoppel

• Section 121 applies only when a person, by declaration, act or omission, intentionally causes or permits another to believe a thing to be true and to act on that belief.
• Nadhini's note was private. It was not a representation made to Rajesh, and Rajesh did not change his position because of it.
• So estoppel does not apply.
• Section 25 itself says that admissions may operate as estoppels only under the estoppel provisions.

Conclusion

The entry is admissible against Nadhini as an admission and is substantive evidence of the debt, but she can rebut it. It does not create an estoppel.

Provision of the B.S.A.	What it says	Effect on Nadhini's diary
Section 15	Admission: a statement, oral, documentary or electronic, suggesting an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact	The entry points to the debt, so it is an admission
Section 16	A statement by a party to the proceeding is an admission	Nadhini is the defendant
Section 19	An admission may be proved against its maker	Rajesh can prove the entry against her, once it is proved to be hers
Section 25	Admissions are not conclusive proof; they may operate as estoppels only under the estoppel provisions	She can explain or rebut the entry
Section 28	Entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant but alone cannot charge any person with liability	The limit does not stop use of the entry against its own maker as an admission
Section 26(b) and (c)	Business entries and statements against interest of a person who is dead or cannot be found	Not needed, because Nadhini is alive
Section 121	Estoppel: intentionally causing or permitting another to believe a thing and to act on that belief	Not attracted: a private note, no representation to Rajesh, no change of position

Unit 5: Confessions, Accomplices and Scientific Tests

20. Confession to a police officer, and the discovery rule (8 marks; also asked for 4 and 3 marks)

Repeated topic: asked in 3 papers.

• October 2025 end-semester examination (B.S.A. paper), Q5 (8 marks)
• February 2023 repeat examination, Section B, Q1(a) (4 marks)
• November 2022 end-semester examination, Q5(i) (3 marks)

Question (October 2025): Alan was accused of committing a serious offence and was taken into police custody for investigation. While in custody, he made a detailed statement to the investigating officer, confessing: "I have stabbed my cousin with a knife and he died spontaneously; I then deposited his body and the knife in a park." According to the police report, Alan appeared to be in a normal state of mind when he made the statement, but the confession was recorded during an official interrogation at the police station. The investigating officer documented the confession, including specific details about the location of the body and the weapon. Discuss the evidentiary value of Alan's confession to the police officer, including the circumstances under which such confessions are admissible or inadmissible, the legal safeguards required, and the factors affecting their reliability.

Also asked as (February 2023): Evidentiary value of confessions made to a police officer, citing relevant case law.

Also asked as (November 2022): Charged with murder, Mr X, while in police custody, made this statement: "Yes, I killed Y with sword and have thrown the sword in a well near the school." The police recovered the sword from that well. How much of this statement is admissible as a confession, and why? Support your answer with case law.

Short answer: A confession to a police officer cannot be proved against the accused, except the part of his information that leads to the discovery of a fact.

Relevant law: Section 23 of the B.S.A.

Provision	Rule
Section 23(1)	No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused.
Section 23(2)	A confession made in police custody is barred, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Proviso to Section 23(2)	When a fact is discovered in consequence of information from an accused in police custody, so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered may be proved, whether or not it is a confession.

Cases

Application to Alan

Part of the statement	Admissible?	Reason
"I have stabbed my cousin with a knife and he died"	No	A pure confession to the police, made in police custody: barred by Section 23
"I then deposited his body and the knife in a park"	Only if a fact is actually discovered	Can be proved only if the police actually recovered the body and the knife from that park because of this information. A fact already known to the police is not "discovered" (Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana).

Application to Mr X

Part of the statement	Admissible?	Reason
"Yes, I killed Y with sword"	No	A confession to the police in custody, not relating distinctly to the fact discovered
"Have thrown the sword in a well near the school"	Yes	The sword was recovered from that well on his information, so it relates distinctly to the fact discovered (proviso to Section 23(2))

Strictly, the admissible part is not a confession of murder. It proves only that Mr X knew where the sword was. The sword must still be linked to the killing, for example by a forensic report.

Safeguards and reliability

• Proper course for an accused in custody: a confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The Magistrate must:
  • warn him that he need not confess;
  • give him time to reflect; and
  • keep the police away.
• Voluntariness: any confession must be voluntary (Section 22 of the B.S.A.).
• Constitutional protection: Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects against self-incrimination.
• Factors the courts weigh for reliability: the length of custody, injuries, delay, retraction and corroboration.

Conclusion

Alan's confession to the investigating officer cannot be proved against him. Only the information that relates distinctly to a fact actually discovered (the recovery of the body and the knife from the park, if made because of his information) can be proved. In Mr X's case, only the words about throwing the sword in the well are admissible.

21. When confessions are admissible, and the value of a retracted confession (4 + 2 + 2 marks)

Asked in: February 2023 repeat examination, Section B, Q1(b).

Question: Under what circumstances are confessions admissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? What is the value of a retracted confession? Can it be relied upon for conviction with or without corroboration?

The model answer below is framed under the B.S.A.

Meaning of confession

When is a confession admissible? (Sections 22 to 24 of the B.S.A.)

No.	Condition	Provision
1	It must be voluntary. It is irrelevant if caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise about the charge, coming from a person in authority and sufficient, in the court's opinion, to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose that confessing would gain him an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature.	Section 22
2	It must not be made to a police officer.	Section 23(1)
3	If made in police custody, it must be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.	Section 23(2)
4	Information leading to the discovery of a fact can be proved even if given in police custody.	Proviso to Section 23(2)
5	It is relevant if made after the effect of the inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed.	First proviso to Section 22
6	It is not irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, by a trick, while drunk, or without a warning.	Second proviso to Section 22
7	A confession affecting a co-accused tried jointly for the same offence may be taken into consideration against him too.	Section 24

Judicial and extra-judicial confessions

Kind	Meaning	Note
Judicial confession	Recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.	The Magistrate warns the accused that he need not confess, gives him time to reflect and keeps the police away (see Question 20)
Extra-judicial confession	Made to anyone else, such as a friend	Admissible, but treated with care

Value of a retracted confession

• Meaning: a confession that the accused later withdraws, usually saying it was forced or false.
• Retraction does not make it inadmissible.
• If the court is satisfied that it was voluntary and true, it can form the legal basis of a conviction.
• As a rule of prudence, not a rule of law, courts usually look for some independent corroboration before acting on it.
• The corroboration need not cover every detail.

Conclusion

A retracted confession can legally support a conviction, but in practice courts want corroboration.

22. Murmuring to oneself: is it a confession? (3 marks)

Asked in: November 2022 end-semester examination, Q1(i).

Question: Rajesh killed his wife in revenge, as she had illicit relations with his neighbour Ramesh. Rajesh was arrested, and at the trial the prosecution wanted to lead the evidence of a witness who had seen the accused going out of the house at 6 pm on the date of the alleged murder, and heard him murmuring to himself that he had finished his wife and had thereby put an end to the daily quarrels. Examine whether murmuring to oneself can be considered a confessional statement, with the relevant legal provision and case law.

Short answer: Yes. Words murmured to oneself can amount to a confession, and a witness who overheard them can prove them.

Meaning of confession

A confession is a statement by an accused admitting the offence in terms, or substantially all the facts which constitute it.

Application

• It is a confession: Rajesh's words, that he had "finished" his wife and ended the daily quarrels, admit the killing in terms. They contain nothing that clears him.
• No need to address it to anyone: the B.S.A. does not require that a confession be addressed to another person. Nothing in Sections 22 to 24 requires it to be communicated to anyone. A statement to oneself is still a statement, and its value depends on whether it was heard correctly.
• Kind of confession: it is an extra-judicial confession, meaning one made outside court and not before a Magistrate.
• Section 23 does not apply: it was not made to the police or in police custody.
• Section 22 does not exclude it: it was not caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise.

Caution

• The court must be satisfied that the witness is reliable, heard the words clearly, and did not take them out of context.
• An extra-judicial confession is generally treated as a weak piece of evidence, so the court will look for support from other circumstances.
• Here, the witness also saw Rajesh leaving the house at 6 pm on the day of the murder. That is relevant as his conduct under Section 6.

Conclusion

The murmured words are a relevant confession, and their value depends on the reliability of the witness who heard them.

23. Confession to excise officers (3 marks)

Asked in: November 2022 end-semester examination, Q1(ii).

Question: Relevancy of a confession given to excise officers.

Issue

Whether a confession to an excise officer is admissible depends on whether he is a "police officer" within Section 23(1) of the B.S.A.

The test for "police officer"

• The B.S.A. does not define "police officer".
• The test is not the officer's title or uniform, but his powers.
• The question is whether he has the powers of an officer in charge of a police station to investigate offences.
• The most important of these is the power to file a police report, or charge-sheet, under Section 193 of the B.N.S.S.

Powers of the excise officer	Is he a "police officer"?	Effect on a confession made to him
The excise law gives him full police powers of investigation, including the power to file a charge-sheet	Yes	Barred by Section 23(1)
He has only powers to search, seize, arrest, summon and record statements, and his case ends with a complaint before a Magistrate rather than a police report	No	Not barred by Section 23(1); relevant if voluntary under Section 22

Officers under the central excise and customs laws have generally been placed in the second group.

How courts test statements to such officers

Veera Ibrahim did not decide who is a police officer, but it shows how courts test statements made to such officers.

Conclusion

A confession to an excise officer who is not a police officer is relevant, if it is voluntary. But the court still examines it carefully, because such officers are persons in authority and the person is often in their custody.

24. Statements to the investigating officer, approvers and accomplices compared (8 marks)

Asked in: October 2025 end-semester examination (B.S.A. paper), Q8.

Question: Compare the evidentiary value of statements made by the accused to the investigating officer, statements of approvers, and statements of accomplices. Which of these statements carries the highest evidentiary value, which carries the least, and what are the reasons for this difference in evidentiary weight?

Short answer: Of the three, the sworn evidence of an approver in court carries the highest value. A statement of the accused to the investigating officer carries the least. The confession of an accomplice who is a co-accused lies in between, and is weak.

Point	Statement of accused to investigating officer	Confession of accomplice who is a co-accused	Evidence of approver
Value	Least	Weak (in between)	Highest of the three
Main provisions	Section 23(1) and (2) of the B.S.A.; Section 181 of the B.N.S.S.; proviso to Section 23(2) (discovery)	Section 24 of the B.S.A.	Section 343 of the B.N.S.S.; Sections 138 and 119, illustration (b), of the B.S.A.
On oath?	No	No	Yes
Tested by cross-examination?	No	No	Yes, and given in the presence of the accused
Leading case	Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor	Bhuboni Sahu v. The King	Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana

1. Statement of the accused to the investigating officer: the least value

• If it is a confession, Section 23(1) of the B.S.A. bars it completely.
• Section 23(2) bars confessions made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
• Even other statements recorded during investigation are hit by Section 181 of the B.N.S.S., and cannot be used as proof of the facts.
• The only exception is the proviso to Section 23(2): information that leads to the discovery of a fact.

2. Confession of an accomplice who is a co-accused: weak

• An accomplice is a partner in the crime.
• If he is tried jointly with the accused for the same offence and confesses, Section 24 lets the court "take into consideration" his confession against the co-accused too.

3. Evidence of an approver: the highest of the three

• An approver is an accomplice who is granted a pardon under Section 343 of the B.N.S.S., on condition of making a full and true disclosure.
• He becomes a prosecution witness. He speaks on oath, in the presence of the accused, and is cross-examined.
• Section 138 makes an accomplice a competent witness, and says a conviction is not illegal if it rests on the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.
• Section 119, illustration (b), lets the court presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
• An accomplice who is not pardoned but gives evidence in court on oath stands on the same footing as an approver.

Why the difference in weight?

• Approver: his evidence is tested by oath and cross-examination, which the other two lack. But as a self-confessed criminal who earned his pardon by testifying, he still needs corroboration.
• Co-accused's confession: it has neither safeguard (no oath, no cross-examination).
• Police statement: it carries the risk of torture, threats and tricks, so the law shuts it out almost completely.

25. Accomplice witness (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: November 2022 end-semester examination, Q8(c).

Question: Write a short note: Accomplice witness.

Meaning

Provisions of the B.S.A.

1. Section 138: an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person, and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.
2. Section 119, illustration (b): the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.

Reading the two together: an accomplice may testify, but his evidence is treated with suspicion. So the safe course is to look for corroboration in material particulars before convicting on it.

Why is an accomplice distrusted?

He is a guilty person who may try to:

• shift the blame;
• protect his friends; or
• win a pardon.

What corroboration is needed?

• It must be independent.
• It must be on material particulars.
• It must connect the accused with the crime, not merely show that a crime took place.

Cases

Conclusion

An accomplice is a competent witness, but a court should act on his evidence only when independent evidence supports it.

26. Narco-analysis, polygraph and brain mapping: the Selvi judgment, and the value of expert opinion (6 marks)

Asked in: November 2022 end-semester examination, Q4.

Question: "The right under Article 21 was violated by the compulsory administration of narco-analysis, polygraph and BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) tests." Discuss the Supreme Court judgment and the conditions laid down in that case to be followed while conducting narco-analysis. What is the evidentiary value of expert opinion?

The judgment: Selvi v. State of Karnataka, decided in 2010 by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

The tests

Test	How it works
Narco-analysis	An injected drug is used so that the person talks freely in a half-conscious state.
Polygraph (lie detector)	Records changes in pulse, breathing and sweating during questioning.
Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test, or brain mapping	Records the brain's responses to words or pictures linked to the crime.

The decision

Applying this test in Selvi, the Court held that narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests extract testimony, so they cannot be compelled.

Kind of evidence	Examples	Can it be compelled?
Physical evidence	Fingerprints, handwriting specimens	Yes
Testimonial evidence (imparting personal knowledge)	Results of narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests	No (Article 20(3))

Voluntary tests

• Even when the person consents, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence, because he has no conscious control over his responses.
• But any information or material discovered later with the help of a voluntary test can be admitted under the discovery rule, which is in the proviso to Section 23(2) of the B.S.A.

Conditions laid down

The Court directed strict compliance with the National Human Rights Commission's 2000 guidelines for polygraph tests, and similar safeguards for narco-analysis and brain mapping:

1. No test without the consent of the accused.
2. If he agrees, he must have access to a lawyer, and the physical, emotional and legal effects of the test must be explained to him.
3. His consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, where he must be represented by a lawyer.
4. He must be told clearly that his statement will not be a confession to the Magistrate, but will have the status of a statement made to the police.
5. The Magistrate must consider the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
6. The test must be done by an independent agency, such as a hospital, in the presence of a lawyer.
7. A full medical and factual record of how the information was obtained must be kept.

Evidentiary value of expert opinion

• Section 39 of the B.S.A.: the opinions of experts on foreign law, science, art, any other field, handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts.
• Such opinions are only advisory.
• The court must test the expert's reasons, which Section 45 makes relevant.
• Expert opinion can be wrong and is received with caution, especially on handwriting.
• The court may act on it when other evidence or the court's own comparison supports it.

Conclusion

Under Selvi v. State of Karnataka, no one can be compelled to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph or brain-mapping tests; even voluntary test results are not admissible by themselves, though material discovered with their help may be proved under the proviso to Section 23(2). Expert opinion is a relevant fact under Section 39 of the B.S.A., but it is advisory and needs support before the court acts on it.

Unit 6: Dying Declaration

Q27. Dying declaration: essentials, relevancy and conviction on it alone (7 marks; also asked for 4 marks)

Asked in: Apr 2024 paper, Q3(a) (7 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q6(i) (4 marks). Repeated topic. Dying declarations appear in 4 of the 6 papers in all.

Question: Discuss the essential elements of the dying declaration. When is a dying declaration relevant? Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of conviction? Explain.

Also asked as: Discuss the essential elements of dying declaration. Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of conviction?

Meaning

Why it is admitted

A dying declaration is a kind of hearsay. It is admitted for two reasons:

1. The victim is often the only eyewitness.
2. A dying person is believed not to lie.

Essential elements

1. Form: the statement may be oral, written, or made by signs and gestures.
2. Maker dead: the person who made it must be dead.
3. Subject matter: it must relate to the cause of his death, or to the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death. There must be a close, proximate link with the death.
4. Cause of death in question: the cause of that person's death must be in question in the case.
5. Expectation of death not needed: he need not have been expecting death when he spoke. Indian law differs from English law here.
6. Any proceeding: it is relevant in any kind of proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the cause of his death is in question.
7. Fitness: the maker must have been in a fit state of mind.

When is a dying declaration relevant?

• In any case where the cause of the maker's death comes into question, such as a murder trial or a claim for compensation for death.
• Anyone can record it: a doctor, a police officer, a Magistrate or a relative.
• A declaration recorded by a Magistrate, in question-and-answer form and in the maker's own words, carries more assurance.

Can it be the sole basis of conviction?

Yes. A dying declaration found true and voluntary can by itself support a conviction.

Tests the court applies to the declaration (Khushal Rao):

• the maker's opportunity to observe;
• his memory and capacity;
• the consistency of his statements;
• whether he spoke at the earliest opportunity;
• freedom from tutoring.

Limits

A court will not act on a dying declaration that is:

• doubtful;
• tutored;
• made in an unfit condition; or
• inconsistent on material points.

Q28. A dying declaration made by gestures (8 marks; also asked for 4 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q2 (8 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q2(a) (4 marks). Repeated topic.

Question: Rafiq assaulted a young woman aged between 15 and 20 years, causing grievous injuries to her throat, which made her incapable of speaking. The assault was brutal and her condition was critical. Despite being unable to speak, she remained conscious and had vital information identifying Rafiq as her attacker. When the investigating authorities realised that she could not communicate verbally, they arranged for her to be brought before a Magistrate to record her statement. The Magistrate questioned her about the identity of the attacker and the circumstances of the assault. Unable to speak, she answered through hand movements and nods. These gestures were clear and consistent, and conveyed crucial details about the assault and the identity of the offender. The police and the Magistrate recorded her gestures as part of the evidentiary process. Since her condition was deteriorating rapidly, the statement was recorded as a dying declaration. She later died of her injuries. Discuss the evidentiary value of the gestures made by the injured woman before the Magistrate.

Also asked as (Feb 2023): "A", a woman whose throat had been cut by some sharp-edged weapon, indicated by gestures before her death that "B" was the person who had cut her throat. Is this statement of "A", made by gestures, admissible as evidence against "B"?

Issue

Whether gestures and nods made by a dying person in answer to questions can be a dying declaration, and what their evidentiary value is.

Short answer

Yes. Gestures, nods and signs made by a dying person in answer to questions can form a valid dying declaration. They are admissible against the accused and, if recorded with care, can support a conviction.

Relevant law

• Section 26(a) of the B.S.A. makes relevant a dead person's statement, "written or verbal", about the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in it.
• It applies when the cause of death is in question, whether or not the person expected to die.

Cases

Application

The woman was conscious, a neutral Magistrate asked the questions, and her clear and consistent gestures were recorded. This is a strong dying declaration under Section 26(a). The court will check that:

1. She was mentally fit. A doctor's certificate helps but is not essential (Laxman v. State of Maharashtra).
2. The questions were simple and did not put words in her mouth.
3. The exact questions and her exact gestures were written down.
4. The gestures clearly pointed to Rafiq.

• Age: her age does not matter, so long as she understood the questions and could answer rationally.
• Section 125 of the B.S.A.: it lets a witness who cannot speak testify in court by writing or signs. This confirms that the law accepts signs as communication.

Conclusion

If found true and voluntary, the declaration can support Rafiq's conviction even without corroboration (Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay). In the same way, A's gestures naming B are admissible against B under Section 26(a).

Q29. Statement to the doctor and Magistrate, but death later from a heart attack (3–4 marks)

Asked in: Apr 2024 paper, Q3(b) (3 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q2(c) (4 marks). Repeated topic.

Question: Akash was badly assaulted by Vikash with a knife and was hospitalised. While in hospital, he gave a statement to the doctor and also to a Judicial Magistrate that Vikash was responsible for his injuries. After 5 days, Akash was discharged and returned home. However, soon after, he died of a cardiac arrest. Discuss whether the statement given to the doctor and the Magistrate can be used as a dying declaration.

Also asked as (Feb 2023): the same facts, with Rajesh as the injured man: after 5 days he recovered and returned home, but died after coming home due to a heart attack.

Issue

Whether a statement about an assault becomes a dying declaration when the maker later dies of a heart attack after recovering.

Short answer

Generally, no. The statement can be a dying declaration only if the death is connected with the assault.

Relevant law

Section 26(a) of the B.S.A. covers a statement by a dead person "as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death". It applies "in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question".

Application

Akash recovered, was discharged, and later died of a cardiac arrest (heart attack). If the heart attack had nothing to do with the knife injuries:

1. His statement is about the cause of his injuries, not the cause of his death.
2. The assault was not a "transaction which resulted in his death".
3. The cause of his death does not come into question in Vikash's trial, which will be for causing hurt or attempt to murder, not for murder.

So the statement is not a dying declaration.

When the answer changes

The answer changes if medical evidence shows that the heart attack was caused by the injuries, for example through complications of the stab wounds. Then:

• the cause of death comes into question;
• the assault becomes the transaction that resulted in death; and
• the statement is admissible as a dying declaration.

It would not matter that Akash did not expect to die when he spoke, because Section 26(a) expressly covers such statements.

Situation	Is the statement a dying declaration?
Heart attack had nothing to do with the knife injuries	No. The statement is about the injuries, not the death; the cause of death is not in question in the trial.
Medical evidence shows the heart attack was caused by the injuries (e.g. complications of the stab wounds)	Yes. The assault is the transaction that resulted in death, and the cause of death comes into question.

Can the statement be used in any other way?

• It cannot be substantive evidence, because the maker can no longer be cross-examined.
• Sections 148 and 160 of the B.S.A. allow earlier statements to be used only to contradict or corroborate a witness who gives evidence, and Akash cannot give evidence.
• The injuries themselves can still be proved through the doctor's evidence and the medical record.

Conclusion

Unless the death is shown to result from the assault, the statements to the doctor and the Magistrate are not dying declarations.

Q30. Can the victim's FIR be a dying declaration? (4 marks)

Asked in: Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q2(b) (4 marks).

Question: A comes to a police station and lodges a first information report that B has beaten him and has threatened to kill him. A is murdered. B is arrested and prosecuted for murdering A. Decide whether the FIR may be admitted as a dying declaration.

Issue

Whether an FIR lodged by a person who is later murdered can be admitted as his dying declaration.

Short answer

Yes, the FIR may be admitted as a dying declaration, provided the beating and the threat are closely connected with the murder.

Relevant law

• An FIR is not normally substantive evidence, meaning evidence that proves a fact by itself.
• It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the person who lodged it (Sections 160 and 148 of the B.S.A.).
• But when that person dies, and the FIR is about the cause of his death or the circumstances leading to it, it becomes relevant as a dying declaration under Section 26(a).

Points in favour

1. A is dead, and the cause of his death is in question in B's murder trial.
2. Section 26(a) does not require that A expected to die when he spoke. So it does not matter that he was only reporting a beating and a threat.
3. A dying declaration need not be made to a Magistrate. A statement to the police is admissible, though the court examines it with extra care. The bar on confessions to the police in Section 23(1) does not apply, because A is the victim, not the accused.
4. The FIR names B and describes a threat to kill, which may be one of the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in A's death.

The key condition: proximity

The phrase "circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death" needs a close and real link with the death.

Facts	Result
A was murdered soon after the beating and the threat, and the murder appears to carry out that threat	The FIR is part of the chain of events leading to death; it is admissible as a dying declaration.
The murder happened long after, or in an unconnected incident	The FIR describes only an old quarrel; it is not a dying declaration.

Weight

• Even if admitted, the court will test the FIR carefully.
• It will look for other evidence linking B to the murder, such as eyewitnesses, recoveries or motive.
• A threat by itself does not prove who committed the murder.

Conclusion

The FIR is admissible as A's dying declaration under Section 26(a) if the beating and threat are closely connected with the murder; its weight then depends on careful scrutiny and other evidence linking B to the murder.

Q31. The maker of the statement survives (2 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q6(ii) (2 marks).

Question: A person makes a statement to the police in expectation of death. He, however, survives. Is that statement admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 26(a) of the B.S.A.)? If not, for what other purpose may it be used?

Answer: not a dying declaration

• No. Section 26(a) of the B.S.A. applies only to the statement of a person who is dead.
• Its whole basis is that the maker cannot be called as a witness.
• If he survives, he can come to court and give evidence himself.
• So his earlier statement is not a dying declaration, however strongly he expected to die.

Other uses

If he gives evidence at the trial, his earlier statement can be used:

1. To corroborate his testimony under Section 160 of the B.S.A., as a former statement made at or about the time of the incident.
2. To contradict him under Section 148 of the B.S.A.

Limit depending on who recorded the statement

Statement recorded by	Permitted use
The police during investigation	Only to contradict the witness, not to corroborate him (Section 181 of the B.N.S.S.).
The FIR itself	Both to corroborate and to contradict him.
A Magistrate, a doctor or a private person	To corroborate him under Section 160 of the B.S.A.

Unit 7: Electronic Evidence and Tape Recordings

Q32. Admissibility of electronic records (5–6 marks)

Asked in: Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q4 (6 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(d) (short note, 5 marks). Repeated topic. With the 2025 question (Q33), electronic evidence appears in 3 of the 6 papers.

Question: Explain in detail the law relating to the admissibility of electronic records, with case laws.

Also asked as: Short note: Relevancy of electronic documents.

Meaning of electronic record

Provisions of the B.S.A. on electronic records

Provision	What it provides
Section 2(1)(d)	A "document" includes electronic and digital records, such as emails, server logs, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail.
Section 2(1)(e)	Documentary evidence includes electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the court.
Section 57, Explanations 4 to 7	Many electronic records are primary evidence, for example a record produced from proper custody, unless it is disputed.
Section 61	An electronic or digital record cannot be refused admission merely because it is electronic; it has the same legal effect as other documents.
Section 62	The contents of electronic records may be proved under Section 63.
Section 63(1) and (2)	Information in an electronic record that is printed, stored or copied (the computer output) is deemed to be a document. It is admissible without producing the original if: the device was regularly used for the activity; such information was regularly fed into it; it was working properly; and the output reproduces what was fed in.
Section 63(4)	A certificate must accompany the record each time it is submitted. It must be signed by the person in charge of the device or the activity and by an expert, in the form given in the Schedule, with the hash value of the record.
Section 39(2)	The opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence is relevant.
Sections 85, 86, 87, 90 and 93	Presumptions about electronic agreements, secure records, signature certificates, messages, and five-year-old records.

Cases

Q33. Changes in electronic evidence under the B.S.A. (8 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q7 (8 marks). This question asks for a comparison, so the Indian Evidence Act is mentioned here.

Question: Discuss the changes introduced under the B.S.A. regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, and how they differ from the previous provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Overview

The B.S.A. keeps the basic idea of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it:

• makes electronic evidence a full part of the law; and
• tightens the certificate.

1. Definitions: Section 2(1)(d) and (e)

• Section 2(1)(d) defines "document" to include electronic and digital records. Its illustration lists emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops or smartphones, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on digital devices.
• Section 2(1)(e) says oral evidence includes statements given electronically. So a witness examined through video conferencing gives oral evidence.
• This reflects State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai, where the Supreme Court had already allowed evidence through video conferencing.

2. Primary evidence: Section 57, Explanations 4 to 7

Many electronic records are treated as primary evidence:

• A record stored at the same time or one after another in multiple files: each file is primary.
• A record produced from proper custody: primary unless disputed.
• A video stored and transmitted at the same time: each stored recording is primary.
• Automated storage in a computer resource, including temporary files: each is primary.

The Indian Evidence Act had no such provisions.

3. Parity: Section 61

• Nothing in the B.S.A. can deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record on the ground that it is electronic.
• Subject to Section 63, it has the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other documents.
• The Indian Evidence Act had no such clause.

4. Section 62

Section 62 repeats Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Section 63 replaces Section 65B

• Wider coverage: it covers information stored in "semiconductor memory", such as pen drives and phone memory, and produced by "any communication device", such as a smartphone, not only by a computer.
• Several devices as one: the rule treating several computers as one now expressly covers communication devices, and standalone, network and intermediary modes.
• Each instance: the certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record "at each instance" where it is submitted for admission.
• Two signatories: it must be signed by the person in charge of the device or the relevant activities, and also by an expert. Section 65B needed only one responsible official.
• Prescribed form: it must be in the form given in the Schedule. Part A is filled by the party and Part B by the expert, and both must state the hash value.

6. Expert evidence: Section 39

• Section 39(1) adds the words "or any other field" to expert evidence, which helps areas like digital forensics.
• Section 39(2) carries forward the provision on the Examiner of Electronic Evidence.

Comparison at a glance

Point	B.S.A.	Position under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Electronic records as primary evidence	Section 57, Explanations 4 to 7	No such provisions
Parity of electronic records with other documents	Section 61	No such clause
Special provision for proof of electronic records	Section 62	Section 65A (repeated in Section 62)
Admissibility of computer output	Section 63: covers semiconductor memory and any communication device	Section 65B: computer output
Signatories to the certificate	Person in charge of the device or activity, and an expert	One responsible official
Expert evidence	Section 39(1) adds the words "or any other field"; Section 39(2) carries forward the Examiner of Electronic Evidence provision	Did not have the words "or any other field"; already had the Examiner of Electronic Evidence provision

What stays the same

A copy still needs a certificate, and the original device, proved by its owner, is primary evidence, as explained in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

Q34. Admissibility of a tape-recorded conversation (3 marks)

Asked in: Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q3(d) (3 marks); Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q4(a) (short note, 3 marks). Repeated topic.

Question: Write a short note: Admissibility of tape-recorded conversation.

General rule

A tape-recorded conversation is admissible evidence if it is relevant and its accuracy is proved. Today most recordings are electronic records, so Sections 62 and 63 of the B.S.A. also apply.

In practice, the recording should also be kept in safe and sealed custody, so that tampering can be ruled out.

Weight

Since recordings can be edited, the court hears them with care and decides their weight after considering all these safeguards.

Unit 8: Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Q35. Burden of proof and onus of proof (3–4 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q7(ii) (4 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q6(a) (short note, 3 marks). Repeated topic.

Question: State the difference between burden of proof and onus of proof.

Also asked as: Short note: Burden of proof and onus of proof.

Introduction

Burden of proof means the duty to prove a fact. The B.S.A. deals with it in Sections 104 to 120. The words "burden" and "onus" are often used loosely as if they were the same, but they have different meanings.

Burden of proof (legal burden): Section 104

• Whoever wants the court to give judgment about a legal right or liability, based on facts he asserts, must prove those facts.
• This burden is fixed by the pleadings and the substantive law at the start of the case, and it never shifts.
• In a criminal case, it stays on the prosecution throughout, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Onus of proof (evidential burden): Section 105

• The burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This decides who must begin.
• As evidence comes in, the onus keeps shifting from one side to the other.
• When one side leads enough evidence to make out its case, the onus moves to the other side to answer it.

Related rules

Section of the B.S.A.	Rule	Example
Section 106	The burden of proving a particular fact is on the person who wants the court to believe it.	An alibi
Section 107	Whoever wants to prove a fact that makes other evidence admissible must prove it.	The death of the maker of a dying declaration
Section 108	The accused must prove that his case falls within a general exception.	Private defence
Section 109	A fact especially within someone's knowledge must be proved by him.	—

Differences in short

Point	Burden of proof	Onus of proof
Also called	Legal burden	Evidential burden
Provision	Section 104	Section 105
Nature	The legal duty to establish a case	The duty to produce evidence at a particular stage
Shifting	Fixed; never shifts	Shifts
Decided by	The pleadings and the law	How the evidence stands at each stage

Unit 8: Burden of Proof and Presumptions (continued)

Q36. Not heard of for seven years (2 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q7(i) (2 marks).

Question: A has not been heard of for more than seven years. On whom does the burden of proof lie that A is alive?

Answer in brief

The burden lies on the person who says that A is alive.

Relevant law: Sections 110 and 111, B.S.A.

Section	Situation	Burden of proof lies on
Section 110	A person is shown to have been alive within the last thirty years.	The person who says that he is dead.
Section 111 (exception to Section 110)	It is proved that the person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.	The person who says that he is alive. The burden shifts.

Effect of seven years' silence

Once seven years of silence is proved, the court presumes that A is dead, unless someone proves that he is alive.

Two limits of the presumption

1. Fact of death only, not its date: the presumption is only about the fact of death. It does not fix the date on which A died. Whoever claims that the death happened on a particular date must prove it.
2. Proof through the right persons: the seven years of silence must be proved through the people who would naturally have heard from A, such as his family and close friends.

Conclusion: Since A has not been heard of for more than seven years, the burden of proving that A is alive lies on the person who says so (Section 111, B.S.A.).

Q37. May presume, shall presume and conclusive proof: kinds of presumptions (short note, 4–5 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q9(a) (short note, 4 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(f) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: May presume, shall presume and conclusive proof.

Also asked as: Short note: Kinds of presumptions.

Meaning of presumption

The B.S.A. defines three kinds of presumption in clauses (h), (l) and (b) of Section 2(1).

The three kinds at a glance

Kind	Defined in	Nature	Rebuttable?	Court's choice	Examples in the B.S.A.
May presume	Section 2(1)(h)	Presumption of fact	Yes	The court has a choice: it may treat the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or call for proof of it.	Section 119 (possession of stolen goods soon after a theft); Section 117 (abetment of suicide by a married woman)
Shall presume	Section 2(1)(l)	Presumption of law	Yes	No choice: the court must treat the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.	Section 118 (dowry death); Section 120 (absence of consent in certain rape prosecutions); Section 78 (genuineness of certified copies)
Conclusive proof	Section 2(1)(b)	Irrebuttable presumption of law	No	No choice: on proof of the first fact, the court must treat the other as proved and cannot allow evidence to disprove it.	Section 116 (legitimacy); Section 35 (judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency matters)

1. May presume: Section 2(1)(h)

• This is a presumption of fact. It is rebuttable, and the court has a choice.
• Whenever the B.S.A. says the court "may presume" a fact, the court may either:
  • treat it as proved unless and until it is disproved, or
  • call for proof of it.

Examples:

• Section 119: a person found with stolen goods soon after a theft may be presumed to be the thief or a receiver, unless he can explain his possession.
• Section 117: abetment of suicide may be presumed where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being treated with cruelty.

2. Shall presume: Section 2(1)(l)

• This is a presumption of law. It is rebuttable, but the court has no choice.
• Whenever the B.S.A. says the court "shall presume" a fact, the court must treat it as proved unless and until it is disproved.

Examples:

• Section 118: dowry death, where the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death.
• Section 120: absence of consent in certain rape prosecutions.
• Section 78: the genuineness of certified copies.

3. Conclusive proof: Section 2(1)(b)

• This is an irrebuttable presumption.
• When the B.S.A. declares one fact to be conclusive proof of another, the court, on proof of the first fact, must treat the other as proved, and cannot allow evidence to disprove it.

Examples:

• Section 116 (legitimacy): a child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its end with the mother remaining unmarried, is the legitimate child of the husband, unless non-access is proved.
• Section 35: judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency matters.

Q38. Legitimacy of children, and conclusive proof versus scientific proof (5–6 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q5 (6 marks); Apr 2024 paper, Section B, Q7 (5 marks).

Question: Explain the law relating to the legitimacy of children born during a marriage.

Also asked as (Apr 2024): "Conclusive proof binds the court to accept a fact as proved and allows no evidence for disproving that fact." In the light of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 116 of the B.S.A.), discuss the conflict between the concept of conclusive proof and proof based on scientific advancement. Back your answer with case law.

Relevant law: Section 116, B.S.A.

Suppose a person was born:

• during a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or
• within 280 days after that marriage ended, the mother remaining unmarried.

That fact is conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man. The only exception is where it is shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten (conceived).

Conditions

1. There must be a valid marriage between the mother and the man.
2. The child must be born during the marriage, or within 280 days after it ends by divorce or death, provided the mother has not remarried.
3. The presumption can be defeated only by proving non-access.

Purpose of the rule

• It protects children from being branded illegitimate.
• It protects the mother's dignity.
• It keeps families stable.

The conflict between conclusive proof and scientific proof

• Conclusive proof means the court must treat the fact as proved and cannot allow evidence to disprove it (Section 2(1)(b)).
• The rule of legitimacy was framed long before DNA tests existed.
• Today a DNA test can show, with near certainty, whether a man is the biological father.
• So the law may declare a man to be the father when science shows he is not.

Case law

Point	Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal	Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy
Approach	No blood test as a matter of course, or for a roving inquiry	Scientific proof prevails over a conclusive proof under law
When a test may be ordered	Only on a strong prima facie case of non-access	Only when eminently needed, after balancing privacy against the need for truth
Concern / consequence	Whether the test would brand the child illegitimate and the mother unchaste; no one can be compelled to give a blood sample	Refusal by the wife may lead to an adverse presumption (Section 119, illustration (h))

Reconciling the two

Science is not ignored, but it is not used for fishing inquiries. A DNA test is allowed where there is a serious, specific case and no other way to reach the truth.

Q39. Who is the father? A, B and C (3 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q5(ii) (3 marks).

Question: A and B were married in February 2015. Divorce took place in July 2015. A, the wife, remarried C in August 2015. A gave birth to a baby in January 2016. Can C deny the paternity of the newborn baby? What legal advice would you give to C?

Issue

Whether C can deny the paternity of the baby born to A in January 2016, and what advice should be given to C.

Answer in brief

C cannot simply deny paternity. Under Section 116 of the B.S.A., the law presumes that the child is C's.

Timeline of facts

Date	Event
February 2015	A marries B
July 2015	A and B are divorced
August 2015	A marries C
January 2016	A gives birth to a baby

Relevant law: Section 116, B.S.A.

Section 116 applies in two situations:

1. Birth during the continuance of a valid marriage between the mother and a man.
2. Birth within 280 days after the dissolution of the marriage, the mother remaining unmarried.

Application

1. As to C: the baby was born in January 2016, during A's valid marriage with C, which began in August 2015. So the first situation applies to C. The birth is conclusive proof that the child is C's legitimate child.
2. As to B: the birth was also within 280 days of A's divorce from B in July 2015. But A did not remain unmarried, because she married C in August 2015. So the second situation does not apply to B.

Advice to C

1. Prove non-access: his only way out is to prove non-access, meaning that he and A had no opportunity of marital relations at any time when the child could have been conceived.
2. Use the short gap: the baby was born only about five months after the marriage. If C can show that he had no access to A before the marriage, and medical evidence shows that the baby was a full-term baby that could not have been conceived after August 2015, he has a strong case of non-access.
3. DNA test: he may apply for a DNA test. But a court will not order it as a matter of course. He must first show a strong prima facie case of non-access (Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal). Where the case is specific and serious and there is no other way to find the truth, a DNA test may be allowed (Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy).

Conclusion: The child is presumed to be C's legitimate child under Section 116. C can displace this only by proving non-access. A DNA test will not be ordered as a matter of course: he must first show a strong prima facie case of non-access.

Unit 9: Estoppel

Q40. The father's land sold by the son: is the son estopped? (6 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Apr 2024 paper, Section B, Q5(a) (6 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q2 (3 + 3 marks).

Question: A is the father and B is the son. Property X is in the possession of the father, and property Y is in the possession of the son. A and B were living separately on land owned by A, which is A's self-acquired property. B sold a parcel of that land, Y, to a person named C, claiming it as his own property. The sale was not denied by A. After the death of A, C claimed ownership over Y. However, B objects that at the time of the sale he did not have any title of ownership over Y. Decide whether B will be estopped from denying the title of ownership in Y. Substantiate your answer with the relevant provisions and case law, if any.

Also asked as (Nov 2022): The same facts, except that B had only a possessory right in Y given by his father, B sold his father's share to C stating it to be his own share, and A also supported B's statement. After A's death, when C claims Y, B says that at the time of the sale the property did not belong to him. Will B be estopped from saying so? Explain the law of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act (Section 121 of the B.S.A.), and then explain the example.

Answer in brief

Yes. B will be estopped from denying his title to Y as against C.

Meaning of estoppel

Relevant law: Section 121, B.S.A.

Suppose a person, by his declaration, act or omission, has intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act on that belief. Then neither he nor his representative can deny the truth of that thing in any suit or proceeding between them.

Essentials of estoppel

1. A representation of an existing fact, by words, by conduct, or even by silence where there was a duty to speak.
2. It was made intending, or at least permitting, the other person to believe it and act on it.
3. The other person believed it and acted on it, changing his position to his detriment (loss).
4. The dispute is between the same persons or their representatives.

Special estoppels: Sections 122 and 123

• A tenant cannot deny his landlord's title.
• A licensee, a bailee and the acceptor of a bill of exchange are bound in a similar way.

Application to the facts

1. B told C that Y was his own property and sold it to him. C believed him and paid the price.
2. After A's death, B inherits A's property as his son and heir.
3. Now B says he had no title at the time of the sale.
4. This is the very situation in the illustration to Section 121, where a person who falsely sold land as his own, and later became its owner, is not allowed to prove his want of title.
5. In the same way, B cannot deny his title against C, at least to the extent of the share he inherits.

Supporting rule: Section 43, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 leads to the same result. When a person wrongly claims he can transfer property and later acquires an interest in it, the transfer operates on that interest at the buyer's option.

Effect of A's conduct

• A supported B's statement in the Nov 2022 version, and did not deny the sale in the Apr 2024 version.
• An owner who knowingly stands by while his land is sold to a misled buyer may himself be estopped.
• B, as A's heir, is bound by that too.

Conclusion

If C knew that Y belonged to A, B would not be estopped. On the facts given, C believed B, so B is estopped from denying his title to Y as against C.

Q41. Promissory estoppel (3–4 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Apr 2024 paper, Section B, Q5(b) (4 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q6(b) (short note, 3 marks).

Question: Explain promissory estoppel in brief.

Also asked as: Short note: Promissory estoppel.

Meaning

Promissory estoppel and estoppel under Section 121 compared

Point	Ordinary estoppel (Section 121, B.S.A.)	Promissory estoppel
Concerns	A representation about an existing fact	A promise about future conduct
Source	Written in Section 121	Not written in Section 121; developed by the courts from the same idea of fairness

Essentials

1. A clear and definite promise or assurance.
2. Made with the intention that it will be acted on.
3. The promisee actually acted on it and changed his position.
4. It would be unjust to let the promisor go back on it.

Scope and limits

1. It applies against the Government and public bodies too.
2. But it cannot compel them to act against a statute, or beyond their legal powers.
3. It may give way where an overriding public interest requires, and the Government must clearly show that interest.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel holds public and private parties to promises that others have relied on, within the limits of the law.

Unit 10: Privileged Communications

Q42. Communication during marriage (5–6 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 4 papers: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q1(c) (short note, 5 marks); Apr 2024 paper, Q8(c) (short note, 5 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section B, Q3 (6 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q3 (6 marks). The Apr 2024 paper also has a problem on it (Q6, solved as Q43 below).

Question: Any communication made between a husband and a wife is protected as a privileged communication, but conduct may be deposed to. In the light of this statement, explain the law relating to privileged communication between husband and wife, and whether the conduct of the spouse is also protected.

Also asked as (Nov 2022): Husband and wife can be competent witnesses for and against each other, but the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the wife or the husband from disclosing the communication between them. Explain the law relating to privileged communication between husband and wife and its exceptions, if any.

Also asked as (Oct 2025 and Apr 2024): Short note: Communication during marriage.

Competency of spouses: Section 126, B.S.A.

A husband or wife is a competent witness in civil and criminal cases, even against the other spouse. So a wife can testify against her husband.

Privilege: Section 128, B.S.A.

1. A person who is or has been married shall not be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during the marriage by his spouse.
2. Nor shall he be permitted to disclose it, unless the spouse who made it, or that spouse's representative in interest, consents.

Reason for the privilege

The reason is to protect trust and peace within marriage.

Key features

1. It covers only communications made during the marriage. A communication made before the marriage is not protected.
2. The protection continues even after divorce or death, because the section says "is or has been married".
3. It covers both spoken and written communications.
4. The privilege belongs to the spouse who made the communication. The receiving spouse cannot waive it alone.

Exceptions

The privilege does not apply:

1. When the spouse who made the communication, or his representative, consents.
2. In suits between the married persons themselves, such as divorce or maintenance.
3. In proceedings where one spouse is prosecuted for a crime committed against the other, such as cruelty or assault.

Family Courts

Section 14 of the Family Courts Act lets a Family Court receive evidence that would otherwise be excluded.

Conduct is not protected

Section 128 protects only "communications", meaning what one spouse told the other. It does not protect acts or conduct that a spouse saw.

Third persons

A third person who overheard the conversation, or who got hold of the letter, can give evidence of it. The bar applies only to the spouse.

Matter	Protected by Section 128?
Words, spoken or written, from one spouse to the other during the marriage	Yes, unless an exception applies; the protection continues after divorce or death
A communication made before the marriage	No
Acts or conduct of a spouse that the other spouse saw	No
Evidence of a third person who overheard the conversation or got hold of the letter	No; the bar applies only to the spouse

Q43. Ramlal's letter to his wife (10 marks)

Asked in: Apr 2024 paper, Section B, Q6 (10 marks).

Question: The accused Ramlal, a mate of an Indian ship, was tried for a murder committed on board the ship. Part of the prosecution evidence was a confessional letter that Ramlal had written to his wife Chameli. He wrote the letter on the day of the killing, and handed it in a closed envelope to a member of the crew, asking him to post it to a certain address as soon as the ship reached the Kolkata port. After Ramlal was arrested, the crew member opened the envelope, read the letter, and handed it to the captain of the ship, who handed it over to the police. The crew member, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial about the contents of the letter, which contained graphic details of the murder that Ramlal had committed. In his defence, Ramlal claims that a communication made by him to his wife during the marriage is immune from disclosure, and so it should not be admitted in evidence against him. Explaining the concept of privileged communication in the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, decide the matter in the light of the relevant legal provisions and case law, if any.

Issue

Whether Ramlal's confessional letter to his wife, proved through the crew member, the captain and the translator, is shut out by the privilege for communications during marriage.

Answer in brief

Ramlal's defence fails. The letter can be proved through the crew member, the captain and the translator.

Concept of privileged communications

Some facts, though relevant, are protected from disclosure because another public interest matters more. The B.S.A. lists these privileges in Sections 127 to 134.

Section(s), B.S.A.	Privilege
Section 127	Judges and Magistrates
Section 128	Communications during marriage
Section 129	Affairs of State
Section 130	Official communications
Section 131	Information about offences
Sections 132 to 134	Professional communications with advocates and legal advisers

Relevant law: Section 128, B.S.A.

• A person who is or has been married shall not be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during the marriage by his spouse.
• Nor shall he be permitted to disclose it without the consent of the spouse who made it.
• Exceptions: suits between the spouses, and prosecutions of one spouse for a crime against the other.

Application

1. The letter is a communication from Ramlal to his wife during the marriage. So Chameli herself could not be compelled or permitted to disclose it without Ramlal's consent.
2. But the section binds only the spouse. It does not bar third persons. The crew member, the captain and the translator are not Ramlal's spouse. In fact, the letter never even reached Chameli.
3. So these witnesses can prove the letter and its contents.

Other objections

1. Improper opening of the letter. The crew member opened a letter entrusted to him for posting. That may have been improper, but it does not shut out relevant evidence.

2. Not a barred confession.

• It is not a confession to a police officer. It was written to his wife, and only later handed to the police. So Section 23 does not apply.
• It was not caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise, so Section 22 does not apply either.
• It is an extra-judicial confession, relevant against Ramlal.

Proof of the letter

• The witnesses' oral account of its contents is only secondary evidence (Section 58), so the letter itself should be produced as primary evidence.
• It must be proved to be in Ramlal's handwriting, for example through a person familiar with his handwriting or a handwriting expert (Sections 41 and 39).
• The translator proves the translation.
• The chain of custody, from the crew member to the captain to the police, should be shown.

Decision

The confessional letter is admissible against Ramlal. The marital privilege does not stop third persons from proving it.

Unit 11: Witnesses and Their Examination

Q44. Chief, cross and re-examination (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q1(a) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Chief, cross and re-examination.

A witness is examined in three stages. The B.S.A. deals with them in Sections 142 to 146.

Meaning: Section 142

Stage	Meaning (Section 142)
Examination-in-chief	The examination of a witness by the party who calls him
Cross-examination	The examination of a witness by the adverse party
Re-examination	The examination of a witness, after cross-examination, by the party who called him

Order of examinations: Section 143

1. A witness is first examined-in-chief, then cross-examined if the adverse party wishes, and then re-examined if the party calling him wishes.
2. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts the witness spoke about in chief.
3. Re-examination must be directed to explaining matters raised in cross-examination. If a new matter is brought in with the court's permission, the other side may cross-examine on it.

Purpose of each stage

1. Examination-in-chief brings out the facts that support the party's case. Leading questions, meaning questions that suggest the answer, cannot be asked if objected to, except on introductory or undisputed matters, or with the court's permission (Section 146).
2. Cross-examination tests the truth, memory and credibility of the witness, and brings out facts that help the cross-examiner.
   • Leading questions may be asked (Section 146(4)).
   • The witness may be asked questions to test his truthfulness, to find out who he is, or to shake his credit (Section 149).
   • He may also be contradicted with his previous written statements (Section 148).
3. Re-examination explains or clears up answers given in cross-examination, so that the witness's true meaning is not distorted.

Hostile witness: Section 157

If a party's own witness turns against it, the court may, in its discretion, allow that party to put questions to him as in cross-examination (Section 157). The evidence of such a witness is not wiped out.

Unit 11: Witnesses and Their Examination (continued)

Q45. Leading questions (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(e) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Leading questions.

Meaning

When leading questions may or may not be asked

Situation	Rule	Provision	Reason
Examination-in-chief and re-examination	Must not be asked if the adverse party objects, except with the court's permission	Section 146(2)	A witness is usually friendly to the party who calls him and may simply agree with whatever is suggested. The evidence should come from the witness's own memory.
Matters that are introductory (such as the witness's name and address), undisputed, or in the court's opinion already sufficiently proved	The court shall permit leading questions	Section 146(3)	—
Other cases, for example where a party's own witness turns hostile and the court allows him to be cross-examined	The court may also give permission	Section 157 (the hostile-witness example)	—
Cross-examination	Leading questions may be asked	Section 146(4)	The witness is not friendly to the person questioning him, so there is little risk that he will simply agree. Leading questions are one of the main tools for testing his story.

Limits, even in cross-examination

• The court can stop indecent or scandalous questions, and questions meant to insult or annoy (Sections 154 and 155 of the B.S.A.).
• An answer that only says "yes" to a suggestion may carry less weight.

Related case

Q46. Child witness (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(a) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Child witness.

Competency: no minimum age (Section 124 of the B.S.A.)

• The B.S.A. does not fix any minimum age for a witness.
• Section 124: all persons are competent to testify.
• Exception: where the court considers that they cannot understand the questions put to them, or cannot give rational answers, because of:
  • tender years,
  • extreme old age,
  • disease of body or mind, or
  • any similar cause.

Preliminary test (voir dire)

1. Before recording a young child's evidence, the judge asks simple questions, such as the child's name, school and family, and whether it is right to tell lies.
2. From the answers, the judge decides whether the child understands the questions and can answer rationally.
3. The judge should record this satisfaction.

This is often called a voir dire (a preliminary examination).

Oath

• Under the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969, no oath is given to a child witness under 12 years, if the court thinks the child understands the duty of speaking the truth but not the nature of an oath.
• The absence of an oath does not make the evidence inadmissible.

Value of a child's evidence

1. Children can be truthful and observant witnesses.
2. But they are easily tutored and influenced by parents or the police, and may mix imagination with fact.
3. So courts examine their evidence with great care. Corroboration is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law. If the child's evidence is found reliable and free from tutoring, a conviction can rest on it alone.
4. The court looks at whether the child's account is natural and consistent, and whether there was any chance of tutoring.

Child victims

Special laws protect child witnesses. For example, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 requires child-friendly procedures, such as recording evidence in a comfortable setting and not letting the child be exposed to the accused.

Unit 12: Identification (Identification Parades and Sniffer Dogs)

Q47. Test identification parade and its evidentiary value (3 marks; also asked as a short note)

Repeated topic, asked in 2 papers: Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q3(a) (3 marks); Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q4(b) (short note, 3 marks). With the Mar 2023 problem (Q48 below), identification parades appear in 3 of the 6 papers.

Question: Briefly discuss the law relating to the test identification parade and its evidentiary value.

Also asked as: Short note: Evidentiary value of test identification parade.

Meaning

A test identification parade is a procedure in which a witness who saw an unknown offender is asked to pick him out from a line of persons who look similar.

• It is held during the investigation, usually by a Magistrate.
• It tests whether the witness can really recognise a stranger whom he saw briefly at the time of the crime.

Legal basis

1. Section 7 of the B.S.A. makes relevant facts which establish the identity of any person whose identity is relevant. The fact that a witness picked out the accused at a parade is such a fact.
2. Section 54 of the B.N.S.S. allows the court, on the request of the police, to direct an arrested person to take part in an identification.
3. Section 181 of the B.N.S.S.: if the police themselves hold the parade, the witnesses' statements identifying the accused are hit by this section. That is why a Magistrate usually conducts it.

Evidentiary value

1. The parade is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the witness's identification of the accused in court.
2. The parade only corroborates, or supports, the identification in court. It also assures the investigators that they are on the right track.
3. The police are not bound to hold a parade, and the accused has no right to demand one. Failure to hold it does not make the identification in court inadmissible. But where the accused was a stranger, identification for the first time in court, months later, is weak without an earlier parade.
4. The parade must be held promptly. The accused must not be shown to the witnesses beforehand, and the other persons in the line must look similar.
5. If the accused refuses to take part without good reason, that can be taken as a circumstance against him.

Point	Test identification parade	Identification in court
Nature	Corroborative only	Substantive evidence
When	During investigation, usually before a Magistrate	At trial
Purpose	Safeguard for the investigation; lends assurance to the witness	The real evidence of identity

Q48. When is an identification parade necessary? Two situations (3 + 3 marks)

Asked in: Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q2 (3 + 3 marks).

Question: Consider yourself as a court and, based on the following situations, decide in each case whether a test identification parade would be necessary. Justify your decision.

(i) X is accused of murdering Y. Z is Y's wife and a prosecution witness. The incident took place at dusk. According to Z, on the day of the incident she saw X running from the attic window with a knife. She saw this from the lawn, which is 100 metres from their house. It was evening and the sun was setting, but it was not dark. She entered the house to find her husband lying dead in front of the attic.

(ii) The trial pertains to an offence of dowry death. The witness heard E, the accused, demanding money from his wife F on the day of the incident. Subsequently, the witness identified F by voice. The witness is a neighbour of F.

Issue

Whether a test identification parade would be necessary in each of the two situations.

Relevant law

• An identification parade is needed mainly where the witness did not know the accused before the crime, especially if he saw him only briefly.
• If the witness already knew the accused well, a parade serves no purpose.
• Section 7 of the B.S.A. makes facts establishing identity relevant.

Application: Part (i)

Z saw X running from the attic window, from 100 metres away, at sunset. The answer depends on whether Z knew X before.

1. If X was a stranger to Z: a parade is necessary as a matter of prudence. Z saw him only for a moment, from 100 metres, while he was running, in fading light. These are exactly the conditions in which mistakes happen. Without an earlier parade, her identification of X for the first time in court would be weak.
2. If X was known to Z (for example, as a neighbour or relative): a parade is not necessary. But the court must still judge whether she could really recognise him from 100 metres at sunset. The distance and the light affect the weight of her evidence, not the need for a parade.

Either way, her evidence shows only that X ran from the attic with a knife. Other circumstances must complete the proof that he killed Y.

Application: Part (ii)

The neighbour heard E demanding money from his wife F, and identified the voice.

• A parade is not necessary. The witness is a neighbour who knew the family and was familiar with their voices.
• A parade by sight would test nothing about a voice the witness only heard.
• The paper says the witness identified "F" by voice. The real point is identifying the voice of the accused, E.
• Voice identification is admissible, but courts treat it with caution. The court must be satisfied that the witness knew the voice well, heard it clearly, and had no reason to be mistaken.
• A voice sample helps only where the disputed voice was recorded, as in the case below. Here, the court relies on how well the neighbour knew E's voice.

The neighbour's evidence that E demanded money on the day of the incident also helps prove harassment for dowry soon before death. That is what dowry death under Section 80 of the B.N.S., and the presumption under Section 118 of the B.S.A., require.

Conclusion

Situation	Is a parade necessary?	Reason
(i) X a stranger to Z	Yes, as a matter of prudence	Brief sighting, 100 metres, running man, fading light; first-time identification in court would be weak
(i) X known to Z	No	Distance and light go to the weight of her evidence, not the need for a parade
(ii) Voice heard by a neighbour	No	Witness knew the family's voices; a parade by sight tests nothing about a voice; voice identification is admissible but treated with caution

Q49. Tracing the accused with a sniffer dog (short note, 3–3.5 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 3 papers: Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q4(b) (3.5 marks); Feb 2023 repeat exam, Section A, Q3(b) (3 marks); Aug 2022 mid-sem, Q4(c) (short note, 3 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Tracing of the accused by a "sniffer dog" as a relevant fact, with case law.

Also asked as: Credibility of evidence collected with the help of a sniffer or tracker dog.

Meaning

A sniffer dog, or tracker dog, is a trained police dog that follows a scent from the scene of a crime, or from an object left there, and may lead the police to a place or a person.

Relevancy

• The B.S.A. has no special section on dog tracking.
• The evidence comes through the dog's handler, who describes what he saw the dog do.
• It may be treated as relevant under Section 7 of the B.S.A., as a fact that helps to establish identity, or that explains the course of the investigation.

Why courts give it little weight

1. The dog cannot be cross-examined. Its "evidence" is really the handler's reading of its behaviour.
2. Dogs can make mistakes. A scent may be disturbed by crowds, rain or time, and a dog may be misled by other smells.
3. The handler may, knowingly or not, guide the dog.
4. The training and past accuracy of the particular dog are rarely proved fully.

Evidentiary value

• Courts, including the Supreme Court, treat sniffer dog evidence with great caution.
• It is not substantive evidence of guilt.
• At most, it is a lead for the investigation, or a small supporting circumstance next to other reliable evidence.
• A conviction cannot rest on it alone.

What the prosecution should prove for it to carry any weight

• the dog's training and record of accuracy;
• the handler's experience;
• how the scent was picked up without contamination; and
• exactly what the dog did.

Unit 13: Character and Expert Opinion

Q50. Relevancy of character in criminal cases (short note, 4–5 marks)

Repeated topic, asked in 3 papers: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q9(b) (short note, 4 marks); Apr 2024 paper, Q8(d) (short note, 5 marks); Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(b) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Character relevancy in criminal cases.

Also asked as: Relevancy of character in criminal cases.

Meaning of character

The rules in criminal cases (Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the B.S.A.)

Section	Whose character	Rule
Section 47	Good character of the accused	Relevant
Section 49	Bad character of the accused	Irrelevant, except in reply to evidence of good character and the cases in the Explanations
Section 48	Character of the victim in sexual offences	Not relevant on the issue of consent or the quality of consent

1. Good character of the accused is relevant (Section 47)

• The accused may prove that he has a good character, to show that he is unlikely to have committed the crime.
• Its value is limited. It can help in a doubtful case, but it cannot outweigh clear evidence of guilt.

2. Bad character of the accused is irrelevant (Section 49)

The prosecution cannot prove that the accused is a bad person, because this would prejudice the court. Exceptions:

• In reply: it becomes relevant once the accused has given evidence of his good character.
• Explanation 1: the rule does not apply where bad character is itself a fact in issue, for example in proceedings to take security for good behaviour from a habitual offender.
• Explanation 2: a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. It is the usual way of proving bad character once bad character becomes relevant, for example in reply.
• Other sections: previous conduct may also be relevant under other sections, for example to show intention or knowledge (Section 12).

3. Character of the victim in sexual offences (Section 48)

• In a prosecution for rape and related sexual offences, where consent is in issue, evidence of the victim's character, or of her previous sexual experience with any person, is not relevant on the issue of consent or the quality of consent.
• In rape prosecutions, the proviso to Section 149 also forbids such questions in her cross-examination.

Q51. Expert opinion as evidence (short note, 4 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q9(c) (short note, 4 marks). The value of expert opinion is also asked in the Nov 2022 paper (see Q26).

Question: Write a short note: Expert opinion as evidence.

General rule and the exception

As a rule, witnesses must speak about facts they saw or heard, not about their opinions. Expert opinion is an exception: when a point needs special knowledge, the court may take the help of experts.

Section 39 of the B.S.A.

• Section 39(1): applies when the court has to form an opinion on a point of foreign law, science, art, "or any other field", or on the identity of handwriting or finger impressions. The opinions of persons specially skilled in that area are then relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
• The words "any other field" widen the scope to areas such as digital forensics.
• Section 39(2): makes relevant the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, who is treated as an expert.

Related provisions

Provision	Subject
Section 40, B.S.A.	Facts supporting or contradicting an expert's opinion
Section 41, B.S.A.	Opinion of persons familiar with someone's handwriting
Section 45, B.S.A.	Grounds of an opinion are relevant
Section 329, B.N.S.S.	Reports of certain Government scientific experts can be used without calling them

Who is an expert?

A person with special skill or knowledge in the subject, gained by study or experience. The court must be satisfied about his qualifications.

Value of expert opinion

1. It is only advisory. The court is not bound by it, and it must test the expert's reasons.
2. Especially for handwriting opinion, courts, as a rule of prudence, look for other evidence supporting it before acting on it.

Unit 14: Oral and Documentary Evidence

Q52. Oral evidence (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: Oct 2025 end-sem (B.S.A. paper), Q1(b) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Oral evidence.

Definition (Section 2(1)(e) of the B.S.A.)

Section 54: proof of facts by oral evidence

• All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.
• The contents of a document must be proved by the document itself or, in permitted cases, by secondary evidence.

Section 55: oral evidence must be direct

Oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct.

If the oral evidence refers to	It must be the evidence of
A fact which could be seen	A witness who says he saw it
A fact which could be heard	A witness who says he heard it
A fact perceived by any other sense	A witness who says he perceived it by that sense
An opinion	The person who holds that opinion

Two provisos to Section 55:

1. The opinions of experts in a treatise commonly offered for sale may be proved by producing the treatise, if the author is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called without unreasonable delay or expense.
2. Where oral evidence refers to a material thing other than a document, the court may require that thing to be produced for inspection.

Section 125: witness unable to speak

• A witness who is unable to speak may give evidence by writing or signs made in open court, and this is deemed to be oral evidence.
• If the witness cannot communicate verbally, the court shall take the help of an interpreter or a special educator, and the statement shall be video-recorded.

Section 139: number of witnesses

No particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact. The court weighs evidence; it does not count witnesses.

Q53. Relevancy of a carbon copy of a document (short note, 5 marks)

Asked in: Nov 2022 end-sem, Q8(g) (short note, 5 marks).

Question: Write a short note: Relevancy of a carbon copy of a document.

Primary or secondary evidence?

The contents of a document may be proved by primary or secondary evidence (Section 56 of the B.S.A.). Whether a carbon copy is primary or secondary evidence depends on how it was made.

1. A carbon copy made at the same time as the original is primary evidence

• Explanation 3 to Section 57 of the B.S.A. deals with documents made by one uniform process, as in printing, lithography or photography. Each such document is primary evidence of the contents of the rest.
• When a document is written or typed with carbon paper, the original and the carbon copy come into being in one stroke, by one uniform process.
• So such a carbon copy is primary evidence of the contents, and it can be proved without accounting for the original.
• A carbon copy signed by the parties in the same process stands on the same footing as the original.

2. A copy made later from the original is secondary evidence

• The same Explanation adds that where documents are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
• A copy made afterwards from the original, such as a retyped copy or a photocopy, is only secondary evidence.
• Clause (ii) of Section 58 includes copies made from the original by mechanical processes that ensure accuracy.
• Secondary evidence is admissible only in the cases listed in Section 60, for example when the original is lost or destroyed, or is with the opposite party who does not produce it after notice.

Point	Carbon copy made in the same process	Copy made later from the original
Nature	Primary evidence	Secondary evidence
Provision	Explanation 3 to Section 57 (one uniform process)	Explanation 3 to Section 57 (copies of a common original); Section 58, clause (ii)
Proof	Can be proved without accounting for the original	Admissible only in the cases in Section 60
Examples	Carbon copy typed or written with the original	Retyped copy, photocopy

3. Relevancy

• A carbon copy, whether primary or secondary, is only a way of proving what a document says.
• The contents themselves must be relevant.
• The document must still be proved, for example by proving the signature or handwriting.
• If a carbon copy is unsigned, its authorship must be proved separately.

Notes on the Question Papers

How the solved papers are arranged

• The six papers contain 81 question items in all, and each is answered. Each paper's question numbers are listed under the heading of the answer that covers them.
• Questions that ask the same legal issue are combined into one answer, with the other wordings shown as "Also asked as".
• Questions that look similar but raise a different issue are kept separate, for example the general note on electronic records and the 2025 question on the changes made by the B.S.A.
• Only cases from the course case list of 46 cases are named in the answers. No other case name appears.

Points to know about the papers

1. "Obadullah v. Queen Empress", as named in the case list, is the gesture dying declaration case of the Allahabad High Court, reported as Queen-Empress v. Abdullah (1885). Q28 names it both ways.
2. The adultery and bigamy question (Q15) is copied from an illustration to Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The B.S.A. keeps the same rule in Section 37 but has dropped that illustration, so Q15 relies on the cow-theft illustration to Section 37 instead.
3. In the Mar 2023 mid-sem, Q2(ii) says the witness identified "F" by voice. Q48 treats the point as identifying the accused E's voice, and says so.
4. The Apr 2024 paper prints its date as "18/042023"; its cover sheet gives the exam date as 18.04.2024.

Answers that state the settled rule without naming a case

For a few questions, the leading judgment usually cited in textbooks is not on the course case list, so the answer states the settled rule without naming a case:

• the sniffer dog note (Q49);
• murmuring to oneself as a confession (Q22);
• confessions to excise officers (Q23);
• the carbon copy note (Q53); and
• a third person proving a spouse's letter (Q43, which uses M.C. Verghese for the same point).

Cases on the course list not raised by these six papers

Case	Point it stands for
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain	Privilege for affairs of State
Kumari Madhuri Patil	Weight of old records in caste claims
Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch)	Informant as investigator
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir	Last seen theory