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

The correct answer is 'Oral evidence'

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct answer is Section 134.

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct answer is Section 119

Key Points

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

The correct answer is 'Section 141'

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

• Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act deals with who may testify.
• All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
• Explanation. –– A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them. 

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points

• The provision allowing a dumb witness (meaning a witness who is unable to speak) to give evidence in writing or by signs, and considering such evidence as oral evidence, is established under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is specifically provided for in Section 119 of the Act. Section 119 states:
• "Witness unable to communicate verbally.—A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence."
• Justification for this provision under the Evidence Act is as follows:
  • Inclusivity and Accessibility: The primary justification for this provision is to ensure inclusivity and accessibility within the legal system. It recognizes that the ability to speak should not be a barrier to participating in legal proceedings as a witness. By allowing witnesses who are unable to speak to give evidence in writing or by signs, the law ensures that their contributions to justice are not discounted due to a disability.
  • Interpretation as Oral Evidence: The treatment of such evidence as oral evidence, despite being presented in writing or via signs, aligns with the principle that the essence of oral evidence lies in its immediacy to the court. What makes evidence 'oral' in the eyes of the law is not the mode of vocal articulation but the direct presentation of evidence to the court for its immediate perception and interpretation. This provision ensures that the court directly assesses the evidence from the witness, maintaining the spirit of oral testimony's immediacy and directness.
  • Verification and Cross-Examination: By requiring that the evidence be given "in open Court," the Act ensures that such evidence is subject to the same level of scrutiny as traditional oral testimony. This allows for real-time verification and cross-examination, essential aspects of the legal process that test the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented. It provides a safeguard against misinterpretation and manipulation, ensuring that the justice process remains fair and transparent.
  • Legal Consistency: This stance maintains consistency within the legal framework by supporting the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial. Allowing witnesses who are unable to verbalize their testimony to nonetheless participate fully in trials ensures that the court has access to all relevant information, which is critical for making informed and equitable judgments.
• In summary, Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, justifies treating evidence given in writing or by signs by a witness unable to communicate verbally as oral evidence, as it aligns with the overarching goals of inclusivity, accessibility, direct court assessment, and the principles of natural justice within the judicial process

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

• Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with professional communications between a client and his legal advisor. The section provides protection to certain communications and documents shared between a client and his barrister, attorney, pleader, or vakil.

• Confidentiality of Communications:

        No barrister, attorney, pleader, or vakil is permitted to disclose any communication made to him by or on behalf of his client during the course and for the              purpose of his professional employment unless the client gives express consent.

• Protection of Document Contents:

       The legal professional is not allowed to state the contents or condition of any document that he has become acquainted with during the course of his             professional employment, unless the client consents.

• Non-Disclosure of Professional Advice:

      The legal professional is prohibited from disclosing any advice given by him to his client during the course and for the purpose of his professional     employment, unless the client consents.

• Exceptions to Confidentiality:

      The section includes two important exceptions where the legal professional is not protected from disclosure:

• If the communication is made in furtherance of an illegal purpose.
• If the legal professional, during the course of his employment, observes a fact indicating that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

• Continuation of Obligation:

     The obligation of confidentiality stated in this section continues even after the termination of the professional relationship between the legal professional and         the client.

• Section 127 of Indian Evidence Act- Section 126 to apply to interpreters, etc. –– The provisions of section 126 shall apply to
  interpreters, and the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils. 

Additional Information

• The aim is  to protect the privacy of communications between a client and his legal advisor and encourages clients to be open and honest with their legal representatives. 

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• Section 124 of Evidence Act "Official communications"
  • No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
• Section 125 of Evidence Act "Information as to commission of offences"
  • No Magistrate or Police -Officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue- Officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.
• Explanation - "Revenue-officer" in this section means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue.

Additional Information

• Section 123 of Evidence Act:-
  • "Evidence as to affairs of State" No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.

The correct option is Oral Evidence.

Key Points

• A fact may be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence.
• There are two methods, one by producing the witness of fact and getting his deposition which is called oral evidence, and second by producing a document which records a fact, which is called documentary evidence.
• Section 3:-It defines what evidence is oral and documentary.
• Both oral evidence and documentary evidence carry equal weightage in their acceptance as evidence.
• Rules governing two kinds of evidence:-
• Sections 59 and 60 deal with rules of oral evidence whereas sections 61 to 90 deal with rules of documentary evidence.
• Oral Evidence:-
  • Section 3 defines oral evidence as “All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses to the matter under inquiry such statements are called as Oral Evidence".
  • Section 59:- It says all facts except the contents of a document or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
  • Section 59 makes it clear that all the facts except those which are contained in documents be proved by oral evidence, which includes electronic documents, which are considered as documents after the IT Act 2000 has been passed.
• Modes of proof of the contents of the document:-
  • Section 61-: Proof of contents of documents- The contents of documents may be proved either by Primary or Secondary evidence.
  • Section 62:- Primary evidence:- Primary evidence means the documents itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
• Secondary Evidence:-
  • Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the term "Secondary Evidence".
  • Secondary evidence includes-
    1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained.
    2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies.

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• A witness is a person who has personally seen an event happen.
• The event could be a crime an accident or anything.
• Section 118-134 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 talks about who can testify as a witness, how can one testify, and what statements will be considered as testimony.
• As per Section 118 of IEA, a competent witness has the capacity and ability to understand the questions put to him by the court.
• If he has the understanding of questions and the ability to give rational answers, then he is a competent witness.
• Any person can be a witness.
• There is no restriction as to who a witness can be.
• A person, either male or female, a child or aged, can be a witness.
• The only restriction is that if a person does not understand the questions and is not able to answer rationally, then he is not a competent witness.

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

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

Additional Information

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

The correct option is All of the above.

Key Points

• Credibility of Children Witness under the Indian Evidence Act:-
  • Witnesses are an essential part of the examination and help in smooth proceedings of the court.
  • A child witness is a witness just like the other witness.
  • The court is always in a dilemma as to whether to accept his / her testimony as evidence or not.
  • Case:-
    1. Mangoo & Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
       • The court while dealing with child witnesses held that there is always a scope of tutoring the child however, that alone cannot be the grounds of rejecting the testimony or evidence given by the child on the conclusion that he/she has been tutored.
       • The court must determine if the child has been tutored or not by required tests and examinations which can make it certain if the child has been tutored or not.
       • In this case, there was no other witness other than the sole witness, a boy of sixteen years, the learned judge discarded the evidence because it was in conflict with the medical evidence and that made the testimony of the child suspicious and there came up a possibility of tutoring.
       • There were certain inconsistencies about material facts in his evidence.
       • The court must ascertain the understanding of the witness by putting questions to him and it should be gathered that the witness fully understands the implications of testifying or stating anything though, this might not be fully possible for children of smaller ages.
       • A child witness must be able to at least understand the sanctity of giving evidence on the oath and the importance of questions that are being put to him/her.
    2. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors v State of Haryana (2017)
       • In this case, the Supreme Court convicted a woman and two other people for the murder of the woman’s husband based on the testimony of their twelve-year-old child who was the sole witness to the murder of his father.
       • The twelve-year-old son testified that his mother was present when the two people killed his father and later was asked by the mother to leave the room at the word of one of the accused.
       • The boy also identified both the killers, the Supreme Court held that as long as the testimony inspires the confidence of the judge the testimony of the child can be held reliable and also said that there was nothing to make his evidence suspicious of tutoring and also that no further corroboration was needed. 
    3. Tahal Singh v. Punjab
       • In this case, the Supreme Court held that in India, particularly in rural areas it is difficult to think of a load of 13 years as a child.
       • The majority of boys go to the field for work and they are certainly capable of understanding the necessity to tell the truth under the administration of oath.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

• Testimony of a witness to the existence or non-existence of the fact or facts in issue is Direct evidence. 
• It is considered as evidence about the real point in controversy. It is also called positive evidence.
• Direct evidence is generally of a superior cogency.