Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
BSA and Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLB 3 years · Sem 6
Jun 2019 - Evidence Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLB 3 years Sem 6 BSA and Law of Evidence Jun 2019 - Evidence Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 24 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the Jun 2019 - Evidence examination.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 1 July 2024, but section 170(2) keeps the old Act for every trial, inquiry or appeal pending on that day, and students repeating the subject still sit the Law of Evidence paper. So every answer here gives both sections. Most provisions kept their words but changed their numbers: section 27 of the old Act is now the proviso to section 23(2), section 32 is section 26, and section 65B is section 63, whose certificate is now in the Schedule. The old sections on cession of territory (113) and on questions by jurors or assessors (166) were dropped. Two changes of substance matter in answers. Section 138 now speaks of a conviction on the "corroborated" testimony of an accomplice, where section 133 said a conviction on uncorroborated testimony is not illegal. And the definitions of document and evidence now include electronic and digital records.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the Jun 2019 - Evidence examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Jun 2019 - Evidence examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 25 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.
Q.1
Q.1: Answer in one or two sentences
20 Marks
(1)Define Conclusive proof.[2]
Answer
Definition. Section 2(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), formerly section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), defines it. When the Act declares one fact to be conclusive proof of another, the court "shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it".
Its nature. It is the strongest presumption in the Act. Once the first fact is proved, the second must be taken as proved. No evidence may be given to disprove it. Only the first fact itself can be challenged. In effect it is a rule of substantive law, stated in the language of evidence.
Examples in the Act.
- Legitimacy (section 116; IEA section 112). A child may be born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days after it ends with the mother unmarried. That is conclusive proof that the husband is the father. The only way out is proof that the spouses had no access to each other when the child could have been begotten.
- Judgments in rem (section 35(2); IEA section 41). A final judgment in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction is conclusive proof of the legal character it declares.
The leading case. In Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 SCC 311, the Supreme Court held that a husband denying paternity must prove non-access by a strong preponderance of evidence.
How it differs. "May presume" and "shall presume" can both be rebutted by evidence. Conclusive proof cannot.
Example. A married woman living with her husband gives birth. The husband cannot lead evidence that the child looks like another man. Only proof of non-access is allowed.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.B. 3 Years 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
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.