KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2025 Jun (Evidence Act paper) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2025 Jun (Evidence Act paper) 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 2025 Jun (Evidence Act paper) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2025 Jun (Evidence Act paper) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2025 Jun (Evidence Act paper) 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type questions and short note/problems is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answers should be written either in Kannada or English completely.
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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Define the term 'Evidence and distinguish between oral and documentary evidence and direct and circumstantial evidence.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the definition of "evidence" in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its two limbs; what evidence is not (affidavits, the court's own inspection); oral against documentary evidence, with sections 59 to 65B and a table; the two meanings of "direct" (section 60, and direct against circumstantial); circumstantial evidence and the five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda; why hearsay is not direct (Kalyan Kumar Gogoi); electronic records as documentary evidence (Anvar P.V.); section 2(1)(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.
The definition in section 3
The word "evidence" comes from the Latin evidere, to show clearly. In the law of evidence it has a narrow and exact meaning. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that "Evidence" means and includes two things.
- "all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence";
- "all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence".
The words "including electronic records" were added by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000), with effect from 17 October 2000.
Three points follow from the words. First, evidence is the means of proof, not the fact proved. Second, it must be given before the court. A statement to the police is not evidence until a witness repeats it in court. Third, the definition is of what the court "permits or requires". So the court controls what enters the record.
What the definition leaves out
Some things help a court decide but are not "evidence" in this sense. Material objects, such as a knife or blood-stained clothes, are not listed. They are shown to the court under the second proviso to section 60. Lawyers call them real evidence. A local inspection by the judge and the demeanour of a witness are also outside it. So is the statement of an accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court may take them into account, but they are not evidence under section 3.
Oral evidence
Oral evidence is what a witness says in court about a fact. Section 59 says all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 60 then says oral evidence "must, in all cases whatever, be direct". A witness who saw a thing must say he saw it. A witness who heard it must say he heard it.
Oral evidence need not be spoken aloud. Under section 119, a witness unable to speak may give evidence by writing or by signs, and that is still oral evidence.
Documentary evidence
Documentary evidence is any document produced for the court to inspect. Section 3 defines "document" as any matter expressed or described upon any substance "by means of letters, figures or marks", intended to be used or which may be used for recording that matter. A writing, a map, a photograph and an inscription on a stone are all documents.
Section 61 says the contents of documents may be proved by primary or secondary evidence. Section 64 says documents must be proved by primary evidence, except in the cases in section 65. Section 91 adds that when the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, the writing itself must be proved.
Electronic records. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, a losing candidate in the 2011 Kerala Assembly election relied on compact discs of songs and speeches. They were copies made from other devices, filed with no certificate. The Supreme Court held that sections 65A and 65B form a complete code for electronic records. A copy is not admissible as secondary evidence without the section 65B(4) certificate. So an electronic record is documentary evidence, but with its own rules of proof.
Oral and documentary evidence compared
| Point | Oral evidence | Documentary evidence |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | statements of witnesses before the court | documents, including electronic records, produced for inspection |
| Main sections | sections 59 and 60 | sections 61 to 65B, 91 and 92 |
| Point | Oral evidence | Documentary evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Rule | must be direct (section 60) | primary evidence first (section 64) |
| Can prove contents of a document? | no, except as secondary evidence under section 63(5) | yes |
| Tested by | cross-examination | proof of execution and genuineness |
| Weak point | memory and bias | forgery and tampering |
Two meanings of "direct"
The word "direct" is used in two different senses, and students often mix them up.
In section 60, "direct" means first-hand. The opposite is hearsay. In Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (2011) 2 SCC 532, a defeated candidate in the 2006 Assam election said voters had left a polling station without voting. He knew this only because his workers told him. The Supreme Court held this was hearsay. The person repeating it feels no responsibility, truth is diluted with each repetition, and it invites fraud.
In the second sense, direct evidence is evidence of the fact in issue itself. An eyewitness who saw A stab B gives direct evidence of the stabbing. Circumstantial evidence proves other facts from which the fact in issue is inferred. A was seen running from B's house with a bloody knife. That is circumstantial. Both kinds of witness give first-hand evidence, so both satisfy section 60.
Circumstantial evidence and the five conditions
The Act does not use the word "circumstantial". But sections 6 to 16 make relevant many facts that only point towards the fact in issue. A conviction may rest on such facts alone, if they are strong enough.
Facts. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, a young wife died of potassium cyanide poisoning in Pune in June 1982, four months after her marriage. No one saw the poison given. The husband was convicted of murder on circumstances and sentenced to death.
Held. The Supreme Court laid down five conditions, which it called the "panchsheel" of circumstantial proof:
- the circumstances must be fully established, not merely "may be" established;
- the facts must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused;
- they must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
- they must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt;
- the chain must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
The chain was incomplete, because the possibility of suicide had not been excluded. The husband was acquitted.
Direct and circumstantial evidence compared
| Point | Direct evidence | Circumstantial evidence |
|---|---|---|
| What it proves | the fact in issue itself | other facts, from which the fact in issue is inferred |
| Example | eyewitness to the stabbing | motive, presence near the scene, recovery of the weapon |
| Main risk | a lying or mistaken witness | a wrong inference from true facts |
| Test | credibility of the witness | the five Sarda conditions |
Circumstantial evidence is not weaker by nature. A single lying eyewitness can mislead. A complete chain of proved facts can be very strong.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The 1872 Act was repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024. The definition is now section 2(1)(e). Oral evidence now includes "statements given electronically", and documentary evidence includes "electronic or digital records". Section 60 is now section 55, in the same words.
Conclusion. Under section 3 of the 1872 Act, evidence is of two kinds only. Oral evidence is what witnesses say in court. Documentary evidence is documents and electronic records produced for inspection. Oral evidence must be first-hand under section 60, which shuts out hearsay (Kalyan Kumar Gogoi). Documents are proved by primary evidence, and electronic copies need the section 65B certificate (Anvar P.V.). Direct evidence proves the fact in issue itself, while circumstantial evidence proves it by inference. A conviction may rest on circumstances alone if the five Sarda conditions are met. The same scheme continues in section 2(1)(e) and section 55 of the Adhiniyam.
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.