BSA MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for BSA - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is 'The court may permit a party to ask any question to its own witness which could be asked in cross-examination by the opposing party.'

Key Points

• Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
  • This section governs the circumstances under which a party can put questions to its own witness.
  • Generally, a party cannot cross-examine its own witness as witnesses are expected to support the party’s case.
  • However, when the court determines that the witness is hostile or not testifying truthfully, it may allow the party to cross-examine its own witness.
  • Cross-examination under this provision includes asking questions that could typically be asked by the opposing party during cross-examination.
  • The aim is to elicit truthful testimony or clarify contradictions in the witness's statements.

Additional Information

• Option 1: A party can only ask leading questions to its own witness if the witness is hostile:
  • While it is true that leading questions can be asked to a hostile witness, this option is incomplete and narrowly defines the scope.
  • Section 157 permits broader questioning, including cross-examination, not just leading questions.
• Option 2: A party cannot ask any question to its own witness during the trial:
  • This option is incorrect as parties regularly ask questions to their own witnesses during examination-in-chief to establish their case.
  • The restriction applies only to cross-examination unless specifically permitted by the court.
• Option 3: A party can put any question to its own witness at any time during the trial:
  • This option is inaccurate as parties are restricted from cross-examining their own witnesses unless the court permits it under special circumstances, such as when the witness is hostile.
  • Questions during examination-in-chief are limited to non-leading and relevant questions to support the case.

The correct answer is 'The court will forbid any question intended to insult or annoy, or any question that, although proper in itself, is needlessly offensive in form.'

Key Points

• Section 155 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
  • This provision governs the manner in which questions may be put to witnesses during a trial.
  • The objective is to ensure that the process of questioning witnesses is fair, respectful, and does not lead to harassment, intimidation, or undue distress for the witness.
  • The court has the power to intervene and forbid questions that violate these principles.
• Prohibition of Offensive or Insulting Questions:
  • The court will forbid any question that is intended to insult, annoy, or embarrass the witness.
  • Even if a question is relevant to the case, it may still be forbidden if it is needlessly offensive in its wording or tone.
  • This ensures that witnesses are treated with dignity and respect during the trial process.

Additional Information

• Option 1 - Questions that are too difficult to answer:
  • The court does not forbid questions simply because they are difficult for the witness to answer.
  • The complexity of a question is not a valid reason for prohibition as long as it is relevant and appropriate.
• Option 3 - Irrelevant questions:
  • While relevance is an important criterion, Section 155 specifically focuses on the tone and intent of questions rather than their relevance.
  • Irrelevant questions may be disallowed under other provisions, but they are not the focus of this section.
• Option 4 - Repeated questions:
  • Although repeated questioning may be discouraged, Section 155 does not explicitly address the issue of repetitive questions.
  • The prohibition of repetitive questions typically falls under the court's general discretion to manage proceedings efficiently and fairly, rather than under this specific section.

The correct answer is 'The court may decide whether the witness should answer based on the question's potential to affect the witness's credibility and other relevant factors.'

Key Points

• Section 151 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
  • Section 151 empowers the court to exercise discretion when determining whether a witness should answer a question that may seem irrelevant on the surface but could impact the proceedings.
  • The court assesses the question's relevance, especially its potential to affect the credibility of the witness or the case's outcome.
  • This ensures a balance between uncovering the truth and protecting witnesses from unnecessary or intrusive questioning.
• Relevance and Credibility:
  • If a question, although seemingly irrelevant to the primary issue, can help assess the witness's reliability, the court may compel an answer.
  • The goal is to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by allowing examination of factors that could influence the court's perception of the witness.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Option 2: The statement that the court will always compel a witness to answer any question, regardless of its relevance, is incorrect. Courts weigh the relevance and potential impact of the question before making a decision.
  • Option 3: The assertion that the witness cannot refuse to answer any question, regardless of the subject matter, is also incorrect. Witnesses have protections against answering questions that are clearly irrelevant or violate their rights.
  • Option 4: The idea that the court must allow the witness to refuse to answer any irrelevant question without consideration of its effect on credibility is inaccurate. Courts can direct witnesses to answer questions if they affect the case, even if they appear irrelevant initially.
• Importance of Judicial Discretion:
  • Judicial discretion under Section 151 ensures a fair trial by balancing the need for truth with the protection of witnesses from undue harassment.
  • This provision prevents misuse of questioning while enabling the court to examine all aspects of the case thoroughly.

The Correct Answer is option 2.

Key Points

This section states that the existence of a previous judgment, order, or decree is a relevant fact if that judgment legally prevents a court from:

• Taking cognizance of a suit (civil) or
• Holding a trial (criminal).

This essentially refers to the legal doctrine of:

• Res judicata (civil cases)
• Double jeopardy (criminal cases)

This is a clear example of the doctrine of res judicata, which means “the matter has been adjudicated.”

• If a final decision has already been passed by a competent court on the same subject matter between the same parties, then a second suit is barred.
• Under Section 34 of  B.S.A, the existence of the earlier judgment is a relevant fact in deciding whether the court should proceed.

Hence, the court will not entertain the new suit.

The correct answer is 'No, they must be corroborated with other evidence.'

Key Points

• Understanding Section 28 and Account Books:
  • Under legal provisions, entries in account books, such as ledgers and journals, are considered relevant in certain cases as evidence.
  • However, these entries alone are not sufficient to impose liability, as their credibility depends on additional supporting evidence.
  • This requirement ensures that account books are not used to fabricate or manipulate claims without proper validation.
• Reason for Corroboration:
  • Corroboration is necessary to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the entries, ensuring they reflect genuine transactions.
  • For example, corroborating evidence can include receipts, invoices, contracts, or witness testimonies that support the entries in the account books.
  • This safeguards against fraudulent claims and provides a fair basis for imposing liability.

Additional Information

• Explanation of Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1 (Yes, always): This is incorrect because account books alone cannot be considered conclusive evidence. Without corroboration, they may lack reliability or authenticity.
  • Option 3 (Yes, if they are signed): While signatures add a layer of credibility, they do not replace the need for additional evidence to validate the entries.
  • Option 4 (Yes, if they are printed): The format (printed or handwritten) does not determine the sufficiency of account books as evidence. Corroboration is still required.
• Legal Precedents:
  • Judicial rulings have consistently emphasized the need for corroborative evidence alongside account book entries to establish liability.
  • This principle upholds fairness and prevents misuse of account books in legal disputes.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points

• Section 21 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the 'Admissions in civil cases when relevant'.
• If an admission is made with a clear and explicit condition that it cannot be used as evidence in court, it is not relevant. For example, if one party admits to a fact but specifies that this admission should not be presented as evidence, the court cannot use it in making its decision.
• If the context or circumstances suggest that both parties agreed that the admission should not be used as evidence, it is also not relevant.
• This could occur if the parties reach an agreement or understanding that certain admissions are not to be brought up in court.

The correct answer is Option 2

Key Points Section 46. In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.—In civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

The correct statement is Option 2. 

Key Points

• Section 30 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.
• Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points

• If a party in a legal case refers explicitly to certain individuals for information about a disputed matter, the statements made by those individuals are considered admissions.
• As per section 18 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions. 

The correct answer is Option 1

Key Points Option 1: Correct. Section 63 requires a certificate to accompany the electronic record. This certificate should identify the record, describe how it was produced, and provide details about the device used, which is crucial for establishing the record’s authenticity and admissibility.

Option 2: Incorrect. The electronic record does not need to be stored on a physical medium. Section 63 allows electronic records to be admissible in their electronic form.

Option 3: Incorrect. While an expert’s certification may help establish the credibility of the electronic record, it is not a requirement under Section 63 for the record’s admissibility. The primary requirement is the accompanying certificate describing the record and its production.

Option 4: Incorrect. Section 63 does not mandate that the electronic record be converted into a paper document. Electronic records can be submitted and admitted as evidence in their original electronic form, provided the necessary conditions are met.

The correct answer is Option 2

Key PointsSection 66. Proof of Electronic Signature—Unless it involves a secure electronic signature, when it is claimed that a subscriber's electronic signature has been affixed to an electronic record, it must be proven that the electronic signature in question indeed belongs to the subscriber.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points Evidence cannot be given to show the meaning or fill defects in an ambiguous or defective document.

• Section 96 states that when the language of a document is ambiguous or defective on its face, evidence cannot be introduced to clarify its meaning or fill in any defects.
• This ensures that the document stands as it is without external attempts to interpret or correct its ambiguity through evidence.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

Oral evidence is admissible to prove facts mentioned in the document, even if the fact is unrelated to the main contract or disposition.

• Explanation 3 of Section 94 clarifies that the statement of a fact in a document, other than those related to the contract, grant, or disposition of property, does not preclude the admission of oral evidence regarding that fact.
• This allows oral evidence to be presented on facts outside the main scope of the written document, such as unrelated facts that happen to be included in the document.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points The court may presume the document is authentic, including the signature and handwriting, without requiring further proof of execution or attestation.

• Section 92 of the BSA allows the court to presume that a document that is at least 30 years old and produced from proper custody is authentic.
• This presumption extends to the signatures, handwriting, and, in the case of attested documents, the court may also presume that the document was duly executed and attested.
• This rule helps to simplify the process of proving old documents, assuming they come from credible custody.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points

Leading questions are permitted during cross-examination and when matters are introductory, undisputed, or sufficiently proved.

• Section 146 of the BSA, 2023, specifies that leading questions can be asked in cross-examination and may also be permitted by the court during examination-in-chief or re-examination for introductory, undisputed matters, or when the facts have already been sufficiently proved.
• This ensures that leading questions are used appropriately and do not unfairly influence the witness's testimony.