KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 6
2021 Mar Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 6 Law of Evidence 2021 Mar 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 Mar examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Mar 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 Mar 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.
Q1What is Evidence ? Distinguish between relevancy and admissibility of Evidence.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: (1) what evidence is: the definition in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, its two kinds, and evidence as the means of proof, not the fact itself; the four words a court works with in order (fact in issue, relevant fact, evidence, proved); (2) relevancy: connection in one of the ways the Act lists (sections 5 to 55), legal and not merely logical; (3) admissibility: whether the law lets the court receive the evidence, under the rules of proof and the exclusionary rules; who decides (section 136); (4) the distinction stated by the Supreme Court (Ram Bihari Yadav); relevant but inadmissible, worked through a confessional first information report (Aghnoo Nagesia) and an uncertified electronic record (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar); admissible though obtained illegally (R.M. Malkani); objections to admissibility and to the mode of proof (R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder); the four combinations and the differences in two tables; sections 2(1)(e), 2(1)(k), 3 and 141 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.
Part 1: what evidence is
Section 3 says: "Evidence" means and includes (1) "all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry", called oral evidence; and (2) "all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court", called documentary evidence.
Three points follow from these words.
- Evidence is the means of proof. It is not the fact itself. A witness's account of a stabbing is evidence; the stabbing is the fact to be proved.
- The court controls it. Only statements the court "permits or requires" count as oral evidence. A party cannot simply read out a written account of his own.
- Electronic records are documents. The words "including electronic records" were added in 2000. An e-mail, a video or a call record is documentary evidence.
The four words a court works with
A trial uses four words defined in section 3, in a fixed order.
- Fact in issue. A fact from which the existence or extent of a right or liability "necessarily follows". At A's trial for murdering B, whether A beat B, whether the beating caused death, and A's intention are facts in issue.
- Relevant fact. A fact connected with a fact in issue in a way the Act lists. A's motive, his flight after the killing, and blood on his clothes are relevant facts.
- Evidence. The statements and documents by which facts in issue and relevant facts are shown to the court.
- Proved. A fact is proved when the court "either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought ... to act upon the supposition that it exists".
So evidence is the bridge between the facts and the court's finding that they are proved.
Part 2: relevancy
Section 3 says: "One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts." Those provisions are sections 5 to 55.
Section 5 then limits what may be proved. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and of facts "declared to be relevant, and of no others".
Legal, not merely logical, relevance. A fact may seem logically connected and still be shut out. That A committed a robbery last year makes it a little more likely that he robbed again. But section 54 makes his bad character irrelevant in a criminal trial, save in reply or where it is itself in issue. Relevancy under the Act is therefore a legal test: is the fact connected in one of the listed ways?
Part 3: admissibility
Admissibility asks a different question. Granted that a fact is relevant, does the law let the court receive this particular evidence of it? The answer comes from two groups of rules.
- Rules of proof. These are found in sections 56 to 100. They govern how a fact must be proved. Oral evidence must be direct (section 60). Documents are proved by primary evidence, unless secondary evidence is allowed (sections 64 and 65).
- Exclusionary rules. These shut out relevant evidence for reasons of policy. Examples are confessions to the police (sections 24 to 26) and oral evidence against a written contract (sections 91 and 92). Privileged communications (sections 121 to 129) are another.
Who decides. Section 136 gives the decision to the judge. He may ask how a fact, if proved, would be relevant. He "shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise". So relevancy is the first gate to admissibility, but not the only one.
The distinction stated by the Supreme Court
Facts. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, a police station officer was tried for setting his wife on fire at Jharia in 1985. Two writings were offered as her dying declarations. One had been recorded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector who was never examined.
Held. The words relevancy and admissibility are often used as if they mean the same thing, but their legal effects differ. Facts that are relevant are often not admissible. Facts that are admissible may not be relevant, such as questions in cross-examination that test the witness's credit. The dying declaration was relevant under section 32. The unproved writing was inadmissible, because its maker was never called. The conviction rested on the declaration recorded by the Magistrate.
Relevant but inadmissible: two worked cases
1. A confessional first information report.
Facts. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, a man went to a police station in 1963 and lodged a report confessing that he had killed four relatives that morning. He then led the police to the bodies and to a hidden tangi, a kind of axe.
Held. The report was highly relevant, for it described the motive, the killing and the hiding of the weapon. But section 25 bars every confession to a police officer. The whole confession was excluded, except the formal part and the facts discovered under section 27. The conviction was set aside.
2. An electronic record without a certificate.
Facts. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, an election to the Maharashtra Assembly turned on whether nomination forms were filed after 3 p.m. Video recordings of the Returning Officer's office would show the time. The certificate required by section 65B(4) was never given.
Held. The certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of an electronic record as secondary evidence. Oral evidence cannot take its place. Relevant as the recordings were, they were inadmissible without it.
Admissible though obtained illegally
Facts. In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471, the Coroner of Bombay demanded a bribe from a surgeon to clear him at an inquest. With one doctor's consent, the police recorded his telephone calls with the Coroner. The Coroner argued that the recording was illegally obtained.
Held. A tape-recorded conversation is admissible if it is relevant, the voice is identified and its accuracy is proved. Evidence illegally obtained is still admissible. The judge keeps a discretion to exclude it in a criminal case where the strict rules would work unfairly against the accused. This shows that admissibility depends on the Act's rules, not on how the evidence was gathered.
Objections to admissibility and to the mode of proof
In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, decided on 8 October 2003, photocopies were marked as exhibits without objection, and the High Court excluded them later. The Supreme Court separated two objections. An objection that a document is itself inadmissible may be raised even in appeal. An objection to the mode of proof must be taken when the document is tendered, or it is waived.
The four combinations
| Admissible | Inadmissible | |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant | an eyewitness's account of the killing | a confession to the police (s.25); an uncertified electronic copy |
| Not relevant | questions to test a witness's credit (s.146) | the accused's bad character in a criminal trial (s.54) |
The differences at a glance
| Point | Relevancy | Admissibility |
|---|---|---|
| question asked | is the fact connected with the fact in issue? | may the court receive this evidence of it? |
| where in the Act | sections 5 to 55 | sections 56 to 100, the exclusionary rules, section 136 |
| basis | logic, as limited by the Act | law and policy: reliability, fairness, privilege |
| decided by | the Act's categories | the judge, under section 136 |
| relation | a fact must usually be relevant to be admissible | a relevant fact may still be inadmissible |
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The definitions are now in section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam: "evidence" in clause (e), now including "digital records" and statements "given electronically", and "relevant" in clause (k). Section 5 is section 3, and section 136 is section 141.
Conclusion. Evidence, under section 3 of the 1872 Act, is the oral statements and documents, including electronic records, by which facts are shown to the court. It is the means of proof, not the fact proved. Relevancy asks whether a fact is connected with the fact in issue in a way the Act lists, and section 5 shuts out everything else. Admissibility asks whether the law lets the court receive the evidence, under the rules of proof and the exclusionary rules. The judge decides it under section 136. The two differ (Ram Bihari Yadav). A relevant confession to the police (Aghnoo Nagesia) and an uncertified electronic record (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar) are inadmissible. Relevant evidence obtained illegally may still be admitted (R.M. Malkani).
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU LL.B. Semester 6 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, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.