Question 1 of 5
'Res Gestae' literally means:
A
Things done
B
Everything said
C
Transaction explained
D
Complete evidence
Why: Res gestae literally means 'things done' or events forming part of the same transaction under Section 6 IEA. Facts connected to fact in issue are relevant, even at different times/places, to give complete picture. Option A matches this definition.
Question 2 of 5
In which case did the Supreme Court decline to admit victim statements under Section 6 due to temporal gap?
A
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor
B
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of AP
C
Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra
D
Nathu Singh v. Jagdish Singh
Why: In *Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of AP (1996)*, SC held victim statements inadmissible under Section 6 (res gestae) due to time gap after bus fire incident. Explanation verifies Option B as correct.
Question 3 of 5
A statement, whether oral, documentary or electronic, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact is called:
A. Admission
B. Confession
C. Both A and B
D. All of the above
A
Admission
B
Confession
C
Both A and B
D
All of the above
Why: Under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an **admission** is defined as a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. Admissions include statements made by parties against their interest. The term encompasses all forms - oral, documentary, and electronic. Thus, option D 'All of the above' is correct as it covers every form mentioned[2].
Question 4 of 5
Statements by accused:
A. Last person to meet victim = self-harming admission
B. 'We were good friends, why would I kill?' = denial of guilt
C. Both A and B are confessions
D. Neither A nor B is confession
A
Last person to meet victim = self-harming admission
B
We were good friends, why would I kill? = denial of guilt
C
Both A and B are confessions
D
Neither A nor B is confession
Why: Statement A ("I was last to meet victim") is **self-harming admission** (Section 17) - suggests adverse inference though not direct guilt admission. Statement B is pure denial, not admission/confession. Confessions require direct guilt acknowledgment. Thus, only A correct[2].
Question 5 of 5
Under the Indian Evidence Act, statements made by persons who cannot be found, who have become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense are relevant in which of the following circumstances?
A. When the statement relates to the cause or circumstances of the person's death
B. When the statement is made in the ordinary course of business
C. When the statement is against the interest of the maker
D. All of the above
A
When the statement relates to the cause or circumstances of the person's death
B
When the statement is made in the ordinary course of business
C
When the statement is against the interest of the maker
D
All of the above
Why: Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cases in which statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses are relevant. This includes persons who are dead, cannot be found, have become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense. Such statements are relevant if they relate to the cause or circumstances of death (exception 1), are made in ordinary course of business (exception 2), or are against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the maker (exception 3). Thus, all options A, B, and C are correct under Section 32[5].
