MCQ 20 November 2023

Daily Static MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (20 November 2023)



Question/ Answer
Question1:-The test to distinguish between direct evidence and hearsay evidence is?
  • 1. It is direct evidence, if the court does not rely merely on it, whereas it is hearsay if the court relies merely on the witness statement
  • 2. It is direct evidence if the court acts upon it and relies only upon the witnesses, whereas it is hearsay if it has to rely not only on the witnesses but some other evidences also
  • 3. It is direct evidence, if the court corroborates with other evidences whereas it is hearsay if the court does not corroborate rather sole conviction can be made on it
  • 4. There is no difference between direct and hearsay evidence as both the evidences are based upon the same events of fact and sole conviction can be made on that basis
Answer is 2 is correct. Direct evidence means evidence by a witness who says he saw, heard or any fact perceived by other senses by him whereas hearsay evidence is not direct in form rather it is an evidence given by a person who has heard it from someone else. Direct evidences can be acted upon itself by the court without corroboration rather hearsay evidence is required to be corroborated with other evidences. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.
Question2:-The Supreme Court recently held that “incriminatory objects, when discovered in places accessible to the public, cannot be solely relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused persons. It is pertinent to note that for admissibility under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact discovered must be a direct consequence of information received from a person in custody”
  • 1. Pulukuri Kotayya vs. King Emperor
  • 2. Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka
  • 3. Md. Naushad vs. The State
  • 4. Biswajit Das vs. The State of Tripura
Answer is 2 is correct. Supreme Court in Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka 2023 while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which reversed the acquittal granted by the trial court and convicted the 6 appellants for offenses under Section 304 Part II IPC discussed the conditions for applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, option (2) is the correct answer.
Question3:-Mark the correct statement?
  • 1. Failure to hold test identification parade under Section 161 CrPC would make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court
  • 2. Failure to hold test identification parade under Section 162 CrPC would make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court
  • 3. Failure to hold test identification parade under Section 162 CrPC would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court
  • 4. Failure to hold test identification parade under Section 161 CrPC would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court
Answer is 3 is correct. In Malkhan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) Supreme court observed and held that TIP do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. Therefore, option (3) is the correct answer.
Question4:- Asking to conduct test identification parade is a right available to?
  • 1. Accused during investigation
  • 2. Victim only during investigation
  • 3. Police officer during investigation or trial
  • 4. It is the power of the police officer or the court to conduct it and no such right is available to anyone
Answer is 1 is correct. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajju (1971) the Court observed that “If the accused felt that the witness would not be able to identify them – they should have requested for an identification parade.” Therefore, it approved the right to ask for Test Identification Parade by the accused. Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.
Question5:-What kind of proceedings are followed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
  • 1. Summons Proceedings
  • 2. Warrant Proceedings
  • 3. Trial by Sessions Court
  • 4. Summary proceedings
Answer is 4 is correct. In Alpine Housing Development Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal (2023) Supreme Court emphasized that application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are summary proceedings. The objective of the Arbitration Act and its subsequent amendments has been to achieve a speedy resolution of arbitral dispute. Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.
Question6:-Arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is admitted in law and can be produced as an evidence before the court if?
  • 1. Stamped
  • 2. Unstamped
  • 3. Unstamped but registered
  • 4. Either stamped or unstamped.
Answer is 1 is correct. In N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) court stated "an unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement is not enforceable in law within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872." The Supreme Court also observed that Section 35 of the Stamp Act explicitly prohibits the admission of unstamped or inadequately stamped instruments as evidence for any purpose. Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.
Question7:-By threat of suicide A induced his wife and son to execute a contract. What is it according to the Indian Contract Act?
  • 1. An unlawful contract
  • 2. A voidable contract
  • 3. A void contract
  • 4. It is not a contract at all
Answer is 2 is correct. Coercion under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act makes the contract voidable if influenced by threat to commit any offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Thus the contract in the above case is voidable by wife and son. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result