KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 6
2022 Apr Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 6 Law of Evidence 2022 Apr 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 2022 Apr examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Apr examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Apr 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)Explain the relevancy of facts showing the existence of state of mind and state of body.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why states of mind and body need a special rule (they cannot be seen, so they are proved by outward facts); section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in its words, with the states of mind it lists; its sixteen illustrations grouped by what they prove: knowledge, intention, good faith, ill-will and good-will, negligence, feeling between spouses, and the state of body or bodily feeling; Explanation 1 (the state of mind must relate to the particular matter, not exist generally), with the contrast in illustrations (n) and (o); Explanation 2 (a previous conviction becomes relevant); the limits (section 54, and the line drawn in Makin); section 14 beside sections 8 and 15; a table; section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.
Why a special rule is needed
Many offences and civil wrongs turn on what a person knew, intended or felt. Receiving stolen property needs knowledge that it was stolen. Murder needs intention. Fraud needs dishonesty. A claim for injury may turn on pain. But no one can look into another person's mind or body. These states can be proved only by outward facts from which they are inferred. Section 14 makes such facts relevant.
The section
Section 14 says: "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."
Two conditions follow.
- The fact must show a state of mind or body.
- That state must itself be in issue, or relevant, in the case.
The illustrations, grouped by what they prove
1. Knowledge.
- (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. That at the same time he had many other stolen articles is relevant, as showing he knew each article was stolen.
- (b) A is accused of passing a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit. That he had other counterfeit coins at the time, or had earlier been convicted of the same offence, is relevant.
- (c) A sues B for injury by B's dog, which B knew to be ferocious. That the dog had bitten others before, and that they had complained to B, is relevant.
- (d) On whether an acceptor knew a payee was fictitious, his acceptance of other bills drawn the same way is relevant.
2. Intention.
- (i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill. That A shot at B before may be proved.
- (j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Earlier threatening letters from A to B may be proved.
- (p) A statement by A showing an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant.
3. Good faith. In illustration (f), A is sued for falsely representing C as solvent. That C was then thought solvent by his neighbours is relevant to A's good faith. Illustrations (g) and (h) are of the same kind.
4. Ill-will and good-will. In illustration (e), A is accused of defaming B. Earlier publications by A about B, showing ill-will, are relevant. So are facts showing there was no quarrel between them, which point the other way.
5. Negligence. In illustration (n), A sues B for hiring him an unfit carriage. That B's attention had been drawn to the defect in that particular carriage is relevant.
6. Feeling between spouses. In illustration (k), on whether A was cruel to B, his wife, their expressions of feeling towards each other shortly before or after are relevant.
7. State of body and bodily feeling.
- (l) On whether A died of poison, his statements during his illness about his symptoms are relevant.
- (m) On the state of A's health when his life was insured, his statements about his health at or near that time are relevant.
Explanation 1: the particular matter, not a general tendency
"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."
Two illustrations show the line.
- Illustration (n). That B had been told of the defect in that carriage is relevant. That B "was habitually negligent about the carriages which he let to hire is irrelevant".
- Illustration (o). A is tried for murdering B by shooting. That A on other occasions shot at B is relevant to his intention to shoot B. That A "was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant".
The fact must be tied to the person, the thing or the matter in the case. A general bad habit does not qualify.
Explanation 2: previous convictions
Where the previous commission of an offence by the accused is relevant under section 14, "the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact". Illustration (b) applies it: the earlier conviction for passing counterfeit coin is relevant.
The limits: section 54 and Makin
Section 54 makes an accused's bad character irrelevant, save in reply. Section 14 must not be used to get round that rule.
In Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales, [1894] AC 57, a couple who took in babies for payment were tried for murdering one infant, buried in their backyard. The remains of other infants found at houses they had lived in were admitted. The Privy Council drew the line. Evidence of other acts may not be led just to show the accused is the kind of person likely to commit the crime. But it may be led if relevant to an issue, such as whether the act was designed or accidental. That is the same line Explanation 1 draws. The English "brides in the bath" case, R v. Smith (1915), applied the same reasoning. Two other women who had married Smith were also found drowned in their baths, and this was admitted to rebut his plea of accident.
Section 14 beside sections 8 and 15
| Section | What it makes relevant | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | motive, preparation and conduct | buying poison; running away |
| 14 | facts showing a state of mind or body | other stolen goods in hand; earlier threats; symptoms |
| 15 | a series of similar occurrences, on accident or intention | several insured houses burning |
Section 15 is a special case of section 14. It applies where the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 14 is now section 12 of the Adhiniyam, with the same words, Explanations and illustrations.
Conclusion. Section 14 of the 1872 Act makes relevant facts showing a state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will. It does the same for facts showing a state of body or bodily feeling, when that state is in issue or relevant. Its illustrations prove knowledge by other stolen goods or coins, intention by earlier shots or threats, and good faith by common belief. They also prove ill-will by earlier publications and bodily states by statements of symptoms. Explanation 1 requires the state of mind to relate to the particular matter, not a general habit, as illustrations (n) and (o) show. Explanation 2 makes a previous conviction relevant where the earlier offence is. The rule cannot be used to prove mere propensity (Makin). The Adhiniyam keeps it in section 12.
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.