UPSC CISF-AC-EXE

Evidence to conspiracy under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to

[amp_mcq option1=”crimes only” option2=”torts only” option3=”both crimes and torts” option4=”None of the above” correct=”option3″]

The correct option is C) both crimes and torts.

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of things said or done by a conspirator in reference to a common design. The language of Section 10 applies when there is “reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong”.

An “offence” refers to a crime punishable under law. An “actionable wrong” typically refers to a civil wrong for which a legal action can be brought, such as a tort. Therefore, evidence relating to a conspiracy to commit a crime or a conspiracy to commit a tort can be made relevant under Section 10, making the provision applicable to both criminal and civil proceedings involving conspiracy.

What is ‘fact in issue’?

[amp_mcq option1=”Happening of an event” option2=”Facts which are affirmed by party and denied by other” option3=”Relevant fact” option4=”Statement made by party” correct=”option2″]

The correct option is B) Facts which are affirmed by party and denied by other.

As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “Fact in issue” means and includes “any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.” These are the crucial disputed facts that form the basis of the case.

A “fact in issue” is central to the determination of the case. It is a disputed proposition of fact that one party alleges and the other denies, and upon which the court’s judgment depends. While ‘happening of an event’ can be a fact, it’s only a ‘fact in issue’ if its occurrence or non-occurrence is disputed and relevant to the case. A ‘relevant fact’ is a fact that is connected to a fact in issue in a way that makes it relevant under the Act (Sections 5-55). A ‘statement made by a party’ could be an admission or confession, which may relate to facts in issue or relevant facts, but the statement itself is not the definition of ‘fact in issue’.

Which of the following is not correct in relation to admission?

[amp_mcq option1=”Admissions are not conclusive, but may operate as estoppels.” option2=”All admissions are confessions.” option3=”All confessions are admissions.” option4=”An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.” correct=”option2″]

The correct option is B) All admissions are confessions.

An admission is a broader term defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as a statement which suggests any inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact. A confession is a specific type of admission made by a person accused of an offence, suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. While all confessions are admissions, not all admissions are confessions (e.g., admissions in civil cases or admissions by an accused person that do not directly implicate him in the crime but relate to relevant facts).

Option A is correct as per Section 31. Option C is correct because a confession is a type of admission. Option D describes one of the exceptions under Section 21 where an admission can be proved by or on behalf of the person making it (specifically, when it is relevant for reasons other than being an admission, e.g., as a statement accompanying relevant conduct or state of mind).

Which one of the following regarding witnesses under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”An accomplice cannot be a witness.” option2=”Communication between lawyer and client is privileged, hence cannot be admitted as evidence.” option3=”Competency of witness shall be decided by Court.” option4=”A dumb witness may give his/her witness only in writing which may amount to oral witness.” correct=”option1″]

The correct option is A) An accomplice cannot be a witness.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that “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.” Therefore, an accomplice *can* be a witness.

While Section 133 states that an accomplice is a competent witness, Section 114, Illustration (b) suggests that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars. This highlights that while their evidence is admissible, courts typically treat it with caution and seek corroboration, but they are nonetheless competent to testify. Options B, C, and D correctly reflect provisions of the Indian Evidence Act regarding privileged communications (Sections 126-129), competency of witnesses (Section 118), and evidence by dumb witnesses (Section 119), respectively.

A is summoned by Court to produce a particular document. Which one of the following is correct in relation to his examination?

[amp_mcq option1=”He becomes a witness in the case.” option2=”He cannot be cross-examined.” option3=”He can be cross-examined.” option4=”He becomes a witness so he can be called for examination-in-chief and cross-examination.” correct=”option2″]

The correct option is B) He cannot be cross-examined.

Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explicitly states: “A person summoned to produce a document does not, by the mere fact that he produces it, become a witness, and cannot be cross-examined unless he is called as a witness.”

Simply producing a document in court does not make the person a witness for the purpose of examination-in-chief or cross-examination regarding the facts of the case. They are merely fulfilling a court order to present a specific document. Only if the party calling for the document decides to call this person to testify as a witness on other matters can they then be examined and potentially cross-examined.

Which of the following is not related to electronic record?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872″ option2=”Section 67A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872″ option3=”Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872″ option4=”Section 22A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872″ correct=”option3″]

The correct option is C) Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the presumption as to dowry death. This section creates a presumption that if a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such death was caused by them. This section is completely unrelated to electronic records.

Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000, to provide for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. Section 67A, also inserted by the IT Act, deals with the proof as to the digital signature. Section 22A, likewise inserted by the IT Act, makes oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records not relevant unless the genuineness of the electronic record is in question. Thus, A, B, and D are related to electronic records, while C is not.

A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which he delivers to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A is guilty of

[amp_mcq option1=”no offence” option2=”attempt to commit murder” option3=”criminal conspiracy to commit murder” option4=”attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder” correct=”option2″]

The correct option is B) attempt to commit murder.

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the attempt to murder. An attempt is made when the accused does an act towards the commission of the intended crime, and this act is a proximate step towards its commission. Mere preparation is not an attempt, but the act of purchasing poison, mixing it, and delivering it to the servant to be placed on the victim’s table goes beyond preparation and is a direct step towards administering the poison, showing a clear intention to cause death.

Preparation is the stage before the attempt. Buying poison is preparation. Mixing it and arranging for its administration crosses the threshold into an attempt because it is a direct step in the sequence of events leading to the intended murder. Section 307 provides for punishment for such attempts, even if the intended act (causing death) does not occur. Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act; while there might be an element of instigation if A involved the servant, the question focuses on A’s actions towards Z. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves a lesser degree of intention or knowledge than murder.

A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A is guilty of

[amp_mcq option1=”attempt to commit murder” option2=”committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder” option3=”attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder” option4=”committing murder” correct=”option4″]

The correct option is D) committing murder.

Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that where causing a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or illegal omission is an offence, the causing of that effect partly by act and partly by illegal omission is the same offence. In this scenario, A intentionally causes Z’s death, which is the definition of murder under Section 300 IPC, and this death is caused partly by an illegal omission (not giving food) and partly by an act (beating).

Section 300 of the IPC defines murder. If death is caused with the intention of causing death, it is murder (subject to exceptions). The question explicitly states A “intentionally causes Z’s death”. Section 36 ensures that the means used (partly act, partly omission) do not change the nature of the offence when the intention and the resulting death align with the definition of murder.

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here

[amp_mcq option1=”both A and B are guilty of murder” option2=”both A and B are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder” option3=”A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder while B is guilty of murder” option4=”A is guilty of abetment of murder and B is guilty of murder” correct=”option3″]

Option C is correct. A attacks Z under circumstances of grave provocation, which, if resulting in death, would reduce the offence for A to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Exception 1 to Section 300, punishable under Section 304 IPC). B, however, acts with ill-will and *intending to kill Z*. When two people act together, their individual liability is judged based on their own intentions and knowledge, unless they share a common intention (Section 34) or one abets the other (Section 107 onwards). Here, their intentions are different: A acts under provocation, B acts with intent to kill. B’s act, coupled with the intention to kill, constitutes murder (Section 300). A’s act, under grave provocation, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

– The liability of each participant in a criminal act depends on their individual mental state (intention, knowledge) unless Section 34 (common intention) applies.
– Grave and sudden provocation is an exception that reduces the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the person acting under provocation.
– Intention to kill, without any exception applying, results in the charge of murder.

– Section 35 IPC is relevant: “Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a particular criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.” This supports the idea that B’s liability is assessed based on B’s intention (murderous), regardless of A’s reduced culpability due to provocation.
– Abetment (Section 107) would apply if B merely instigated or aided A without directly participating in the physical act of killing. The phrase “assists A in killing Z” suggests B is involved in the act, making B liable under Section 35 read with the relevant sections defining the offences.

A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of

[amp_mcq option1=”theft” option2=”attempt to commit theft” option3=”no offence” option4=”using force” correct=”option2″]

Option B is correct. This scenario describes an attempt to commit theft under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with the definition of theft under Section 378. A forms the intention to commit theft (dishonestly taking movable property out of Z’s possession without consent) and does an act towards its commission (thrusting hand into pocket). The failure to complete the act (because the pocket is empty) does not negate the attempt.

– An attempt to commit a crime requires the intention to commit the crime and an overt act done towards its commission.
– The failure to complete the crime or the fact that the crime was impossible to complete due to circumstances unknown to the offender (like an empty pocket) does not prevent the act from being an attempt, provided the act done was proximate enough to the intended crime.

– Theft requires the actual moving of movable property. Since there was nothing in the pocket, theft was not completed.
– Section 511 IPC punishes attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. Theft (punishable under Section 379 IPC) falls under “other imprisonment”.