KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2015 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2015 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain the relevancy of facts showing the existence of state of mind or state of body.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: (1) the rule: section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in its words, and why states of mind and body are proved by outward facts; (2) four conditions for using it: a state of mind or body in issue or relevant; a fact that shows it; the state shown in reference to the particular matter (Explanation 1, illustrations (n), (o) and (p)); previous convictions (Explanation 2, illustration (b)); (3) the section at work in each kind of case: criminal knowledge and intention (illustrations (a), (b), (i), (j)); civil negligence, good faith and fraud ((c), (d), (f), (g), (h)); defamation ((e)); cruelty in marriage ((k)); state of body and bodily feeling ((l), (m)); (4) the line between proving intention and proving bad character (section 15; Makin; R v. Smith; section 54); consent as a state of mind and the victim's character (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh; section 53A); (5) a person's own statements of feeling and symptoms; a table; section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.
Part 1: the rule
Many cases turn on what was in a person's mind, or the condition of his body. Did the accused know the goods were stolen? Did the defendant act in good faith? Was the deceased suffering the symptoms of poison? No witness can see a state of mind. So the law lets it be proved by outward facts from which it can be inferred.
Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides: "Facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant."
The list of states of mind is not closed. The words "such as" show it gives examples.
Part 2: four conditions
1. The state of mind or body must be in issue or relevant. Section 14 does not make every fact about a person's mind relevant. It applies only where his intention, knowledge or bodily condition matters to the case.
2. The fact must show that state. The fact offered must tend to prove the state of mind or body, not something else.
3. The state must relate to the particular matter (Explanation 1). "A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question." The illustrations draw the line clearly:
- In a suit for negligence in hiring out an unfit carriage, the fact that the owner was warned about that particular carriage is relevant. That he was "habitually negligent" about all his carriages is irrelevant (illustration (n)).
- In a murder trial, that the accused shot at the same victim on other occasions is relevant. That he was "in the habit of shooting at people" is irrelevant (illustration (o)).
- A statement showing an intention to commit "that particular crime" is relevant. One showing "a general disposition to commit crimes of that class" is not (illustration (p)).
4. Previous convictions (Explanation 2). Where the previous commission of an offence is relevant under this section, "the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact". Illustration (b) shows this. A man may be accused of knowingly passing a counterfeit coin. His earlier conviction for the same thing may be shown, as proof of his knowledge.
Part 3: the section at work
Criminal knowledge and intention.
- A man accused of receiving stolen goods was found with one stolen article. That he also had many other stolen articles at the same time is relevant, as showing he knew each was stolen (illustration (a)).
- A man accused of passing a counterfeit coin may be shown to have had other counterfeit coins at the time (illustration (b)).
- On a charge of shooting at B with intent to kill, that he shot at B before may be proved (illustration (i)).
- On a charge of sending threatening letters, earlier threatening letters to the same person may be proved (illustration (j)).
Civil negligence, good faith and fraud.
- In a suit for damage by a dog the owner knew to be ferocious, earlier bites and complaints are relevant (illustration (c)).
- Whether the acceptor of a bill knew the payee was fictitious may be shown by other bills he accepted in the same way (illustration (d)).
- That a person said to be solvent was then thought solvent by his neighbours shows good faith (illustration (f)).
- A finder of property may claim he believed in good faith that the owner could not be found. Proof of a public notice of the loss answers him (illustration (h)).
Defamation. Earlier publications about B showing ill-will are relevant to prove intent to harm B's reputation. The absence of any quarrel, and that A only repeated what he heard, are relevant the other way (illustration (e)).
Cruelty in marriage. Where the question is whether a husband was cruel to his wife, "Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts" (illustration (k)).
State of body or bodily feeling. Where the question is whether A died of poison, his statements during his illness about his symptoms are relevant (illustration (l)). Where the question is his health when his life was insured, his statements about his health at about that time are relevant (illustration (m)).
Part 4: intention, not bad character
Section 14 must not become a back door for proving that the accused is a bad man. Section 54 makes his bad character irrelevant, except in reply. The line is that earlier acts may be proved to show his mind about this act, not his general tendency.
Facts. In Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales, [1894] AC 57, John and Sarah Makin took in an infant for payment, and its body was found buried in their backyard. The remains of other infants were found buried at houses they had lived in before.
Held. The Privy Council held that evidence of other crimes may not be led merely to show the accused's character. It cannot be used to show he is the kind of person likely to commit the offence. But it is admissible if it is relevant to an issue, such as whether the act was designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence. The other burials were admitted.
Facts. In R v. Smith, (1915) 11 Cr App R 229, the "brides in the bath" case, three women who had married Smith and made money arrangements in his favour were found drowned in their baths. He was tried for one death and said it was an accident.
Held. Evidence of the other two deaths was admitted to rebut the defence of accident and to show a system. Section 15 of the 1872 Act states the same idea. The question may be whether an act was accidental or intentional. Then the fact that it formed part of "a series of similar occurrences" in which the person was concerned is relevant.
Consent is a state of mind too. In a rape trial, whether the woman consented is a state of mind in issue. But Explanation 1 requires proof of her mind as to this act, not a general tendency.
Facts. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, a girl below sixteen was abducted and raped by three men. The trial court acquitted them, relying partly on a doctor's remark that she might be habituated to sexual intercourse.
Held. No inference of loose character is permissible from that alone, and even such a woman may refuse consent. The three were convicted. Section 53A, added in 2013, now makes the victim's character and sexual past irrelevant on consent.
Part 5: a person's own statements of feeling
Illustrations (k), (l) and (m) show that a person's own words may prove his state of mind or body. A man's complaint of burning pain proves he felt it. A wife's words to her husband show her feelings towards him. These statements are relevant under section 14 because they show the state of mind or body itself. Section 21(2) also allows a person to prove his own statement of a state of mind or body. It must be made at the time and accompanied by conduct making its falsehood improbable.
Section 14 at a glance
| State | Example | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | other stolen articles; other counterfeit coins | (a), (b) |
| Intention | earlier shots at the same victim; earlier threatening letters | (i), (j), (o) |
| State | Example | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Negligence | earlier bites by the dog; warnings about that carriage | (c), (n) |
| Good faith or fraud | neighbours thought C solvent; public notice of loss | (f), (h) |
| Ill-will or good-will | earlier publications; no previous quarrel | (e) |
| Feeling between spouses | expressions before or after the cruelty | (k) |
| State of body | statements of symptoms or health | (l), (m) |
| Limits | particular, not general; no proof of bad character | Explanation 1; section 54; Makin |
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 14 is now section 12 of the Adhiniyam, with both Explanations. The illustrations are the same, except that illustration (b) speaks of counterfeit "currency" for "coin", and illustration (n) of a "car" for a "carriage". Section 15 is section 13.
Conclusion. Section 14 of the 1872 Act makes relevant any fact that shows a state of mind or a state of body or bodily feeling. The states of mind include intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will and good-will. It applies only when that state is in issue or relevant. Explanation 1 limits it to the state of mind about the particular matter, not a general disposition, as illustrations (n), (o) and (p) show. Explanation 2 lets in a previous conviction where the earlier offence shows the state of mind. It is used in criminal, civil, defamation, matrimonial and insurance cases alike. Earlier acts may prove design or rebut accident (Makin, R v. Smith, section 15), but never bad character as such (section 54). And a victim's character cannot prove her consent (Gurmit Singh, section 53A).
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 8 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.