L.L.B-L.LB General 3rd Sem LAW OF EVIDENCE(University of Pune, Pune-2013)
II - LL.B. (Semester - III)
SEAT No. :
[Total No. of Pages : 2
(2nd Year of the Three Year Law Course)
LAW OF EVIDENCE
(2003 Pattern) (Paper - 10)
Time :3 Hours] [Max. Marks :100
Instructions to the candidates :
1) All questions are compulsory.
2) Figures to the right indicate full marks.
Q1) Evidence must be given of facts and not opinions. Explain. [16]
OR
What is meant by “conclusive proof”? Enumerate and explain all such
presumptions under the Evidence Act.
Q2) All confessions are admissions. Explain. [16]
OR
All facts must be proved except those which are admitted or of which the
court will take judicial notice. Explain.
Q3) Discuss the principles affecting the admissibility, reliability and weight of a
dying declaration. [16]
OR
What is a public document? What are the special provisions in the Evidence
Act concerning them?
Q4) Who must bring evidence? [16]
OR
A privilege not to testify certain facts can be waived. But a disability cannot.
Discuss with reference to the privileges and disabilities under the Indian Evidence Act.
Q5) In what manner can the credit of a witness be impeached. [16]
OR
How is the handwriting of a person proved?
P.T.O.
Q6) Answer (A) or (B) : (figures in brackets indicate marks) : [20]
A) Mr. Bright is accused of having robbed a bank in the evening of 31
December 1995. While in police custody during investigation. Mr. Bright has given a confession to the Sub-inspector of Police that he has committed the robbery, and volunteered to take them to a field where he had hidden the cash; and in the field, cash of Rs. 2 lakhs is found. Three employees of the bank and fifteen customers alleged to be present in the bank at the time of the robbery are available to the prosecution as eye witnesses. On 3 January 1996, Mr. Bright has purchased a flat under a written agreement from Mr. Builder by making single-stroke cash payment of Rs. 3 lakhs. Mr. Bright wishes to produce a ticket for that evening to a new-year party in Hi-fi restaurant.
i) Can the confession be proved? [5]
ii) How many witnesses should the prosecution examine? [5]
iii) Is the agreement with Mr. Builder and the payment of price of flat
relevant? [5]
iv) Is the ticket of the new-year party relevant? [5]
B) Mr. Coparcener has filed a suit against the karta and other owners for
partition of ancestral property, claiming that a plot is ancestral property. In the suit the karta, Mr. Karta, in whose name the plot stands, claims that the plot is his separate and self-earned property. Mr. Coparcener wishes to rely upon a return filed by Mr. Karta under the Urban Land CeilingAct, wherein Mr. Karta has stated that the plot is ancestral property. The return is in the Office of the Collector.
i) Is the statement in the return relevant? [5]
ii) How can the return be produced and proved before the Court?[5]
iii) On whom lies the burden of proof to show that the said plot is/is
not separate property of Mr. Karta? [5]
iv) Is the return a public document? [5]
| Earning: ₹ 7.05/- |
