KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2021 Sep (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2021 Sep (100 marks) 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 2021 Sep (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Sep (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Sep (100 marks) 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 · 15 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 forming part of the same transaction.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what "res gestae" means and where the doctrine comes from (English common law; a phrase the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not use); how section 6 enacts it, in its words and with its four illustrations; the reason the law admits such facts (spontaneity leaves no time to invent; the event cannot be understood without them); the doctrine as five propositions taken from the decided cases: (1) the fact must be part of one transaction; (2) words count only if they are part of the event, not a report of it (Teper); (3) there must be no interval that allows fabrication (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao); (4) a victim's immediate cry naming his attacker is admissible (Sukhar); (5) admissibility is not reliability (Sukhar); res gestae and the "circumstances of the transaction" in section 32(1) compared (Pakala Narayana Swami); the uses and the criticism of the doctrine; a table of the cases; section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.
The meaning and the source
Res gestae is Latin for "things done". In English common law the phrase came to describe facts, including words, so closely bound up with an event that they form part of it. Such facts could be proved even though they were hearsay. They were treated as part of the event itself, not as a later account of it.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not use the phrase, which is vague. Instead, section 6 states the rule in its own words, and the courts call it the rule of res gestae.
Section 6
"Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places."
The four illustrations.
- (a) A is accused of murdering B by beating him. "Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact."
- (b) A is accused of waging war by taking part in an armed insurrection. The destruction of property, attacks on troops and breaking of gaols are relevant. They form part of the general transaction, though A was not present at all of them.
- (c) In a libel suit on a letter, the other letters of that correspondence are relevant, though they do not contain the libel.
- (d) Where the question is whether goods were delivered, each delivery to the intermediate persons is relevant.
Why the law admits such facts
- Spontaneity. Words spoken in the heat of an event come out before the speaker has time to think up a story. That gives them a guarantee of truth that a later account does not have.
- Completeness. Some facts are so tied to the event that it cannot be understood without them. A shout of "help, he is killing me" during an attack explains what the witness saw.
- No better evidence. Often the speaker is dead, unknown or cannot be found. The words as heard are the best evidence of what happened.
The doctrine in five propositions
The courts have worked out the limits of section 6 case by case. Five propositions emerge.
Proposition 1: the fact must be part of one transaction
A transaction is a group of facts so connected that they form one event, with one subject. The test is not only time. Courts look at closeness of time and place, continuity of action and a common purpose. Illustration (b) shows that a fact can be part of a transaction even at another place, if the purpose is one.
Proposition 2: words count only if they are part of the event
Facts. In Teper v. The Queen, [1952] AC 480, a man was charged with setting fire to his own shop, and he raised an alibi. A policeman said that he had heard a woman shout to a passing motorist: "Your place burning and you going away from the fire".
Held. The Privy Council held the evidence inadmissible. Lord Normand said the words must be, if not absolutely contemporaneous with the event, "so clearly associated with it in time, place and circumstance that they are part of the thing being done". They must not be "merely a reported statement". The woman's words did not meet that test, so the alibi could not be contradicted by them.
Proposition 3: no interval that allows fabrication
Facts. In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 241, two men set fire to a bus near Narasaraopet in March 1993 to rob its passengers, and 23 people died. A Magistrate later recorded the statements of burnt passengers. Two of them survived, and the High Court treated their statements as res gestae.
Held. The Supreme Court disagreed. A res gestae statement must be made at the time of the acts, or at least immediately after. If there was an interval, however slight, long enough for fabrication, the statement is out. An appreciable time had passed before the Magistrate recorded them. The statements could be used only to corroborate the survivors' evidence under section 157.
Proposition 4: a victim's immediate statement naming his attacker is admissible
Facts. In Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 9 SCC 507, a man was shot near a sugarcane field in the early morning. A witness heard the shot and ran to the spot. When asked, the wounded man said his nephew Sukhar had shot him.
Held. The statement was made almost at the moment of the shooting, with no time to invent. It was admissible under section 6 as part of the same transaction.
Proposition 5: admissibility is not reliability
In Sukhar the Court went on to weigh the evidence. The only witness to the statement was hostile to the accused. More than twenty others had heard the same words, and none of them was examined. His evidence needed corroboration, and there was none. The accused was acquitted. So section 6 opens the door to the evidence. It does not make the evidence true.
Res gestae and section 32(1)
Section 32(1) makes relevant a dead person's statement as to "any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death". The words look similar, but the rule is different.
In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, (1939) 41 Bom LR 428, a man told his wife he was going to Berhampur to be paid money owed to him. His body was later found cut up in a trunk at Puri. The Privy Council admitted his statement under section 32(1). It said this phrase is narrower than res gestae, in that the circumstances must relate to the transaction that caused the death. But it is not tied to contemporaneity: the statement may be made before the cause of death arises.
| Point | Section 6 (res gestae) | Section 32(1) |
|---|---|---|
| maker | anyone: the victim, the accused, a bystander | a person now dead |
| time | at the event, or so shortly before or after as to be part of it | any time, if it relates to the transaction |
| reason for admitting | spontaneity | necessity: the maker cannot be called |
| subject | any fact in issue | the cause or circumstances of the maker's death |
The uses and the criticism of the doctrine
Uses. Res gestae lets in the cries of victims, the words of attackers, the exclamations of bystanders and the acts surrounding an event. It is especially useful in crimes of sudden violence, where the first words spoken are often the most truthful.
Criticism. The idea is loose. "So shortly before or after" has no fixed measure. Used carelessly, it can let in ordinary hearsay. That is why Indian courts insist on strict contemporaneity (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao). It is also why they still test the reliability of the witness who reports the words (Sukhar).
The cases at a glance
| Case | Statement | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Teper | a woman's shout to a passing motorist, heard by a policeman | excluded: not shown to be part of the event |
| Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao | burnt passengers' statements to a Magistrate after an interval | excluded; usable only under section 157 |
| Sukhar | the wounded man's words at once after the shot | admitted, but not relied on without corroboration |
| Pakala Narayana Swami | the deceased's words to his wife before the journey | admitted under section 32(1), not section 6 |
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 6 is now section 4 of the Adhiniyam, with the same words and illustrations.
Conclusion. Res gestae means "things done": facts, including words, so bound up with an event that they form part of it. Section 6 of the 1872 Act enacts the doctrine without naming it. Facts forming part of the same transaction as a fact in issue are relevant, whether at the same time and place or not. Words are admitted only if they are part of the event, not a report of it (Teper). They must come before there is time to invent (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao). A victim's immediate words naming his attacker qualify (Sukhar). Even then, the court must weigh the witness who reports them (Sukhar). Section 32(1) is a separate rule for dead persons (Pakala Narayana Swami). The Adhiniyam keeps the rule in section 4.
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.