1the exception to the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the

person
who asserts the affirmative of issue?
BURDEN OF PROOF (Section 101):The “Burden of proof” is discussed in
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. According to this clause, a
person must establish the existence of any facts he claims in order for the
court to rule on his legal rights or obligations based on such facts. The
burden of proof is stated to be on a person when they have a
responsibility or obligation to establish a fact. E.g.: If Ram is of the opinion
that Shyam has committed a crime and that he must be punished for the
same, then it is upon him to prove that Shyam has committed the said
crime.
BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED COMES WITHIN EXCEPTION
(Section
105)
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 speaks about the “Burden
of proving that the case of the accused comes within exceptions”. The
burden of establishing the existence of all circumstances bringing a case
under any of these exceptions shall be on the accused when, under this
section, an accused relies in his defence on any of the Exceptions
provided in the Indian Penal Code or in any other statute defining the
offence. A presumption that such circumstances don’t exist will be made
by the court. When making an exemption under Section 105, the level of
proof required of the accused is far lower than it would be for the
prosecution in a comparable situation. It may not be necessary for an
accused person to present evidence to demonstrate their innocence.
However, an accused person alone has the burden of proving that his
specific circumstances fall under an exception to the said clause.
General presumption: According to the general premise, the accused is
presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests
with the prosecution to do so. Once guilt has been proven, the burden of
proof shifts to the accused, who may then raise an I.P.C. general
exceptions defence. This overall burden is always on the prosecution and
it never changes. An essential exception to this general rule is Section 105.
The approach outlined in Section 103 is applied in this section and even
extended. The specific responsibility placed on the accused under Section
105 does not conflict with the general burden, which always falls on the
prosecution and never changes.@@₹@₹@@&)@)@)
2. may presume and shall presume under Indian evidence act, and
differentiate between presumption of fact and presumption of law ?
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with May Presume Shall
presume and Conclusive proof .
May presume : When it is provided by the Act that the Court may
presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until
it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. This means that the Court has
the discretion to either accept a fact as true without any further proof, or
to demand proof of the fact before accepting it as true.
May presume: The Court may presume that a letter properly addressed
and stamped was duly received in the course of post.
Shall presume : When it is directed by the Act that the Court shall
presume afact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is
disproved. This means that the Court is required to accept a fact as true
unless the party opposing the presumption can prove that the fact is not
true
. Shall presume: The Court shall presume that a child under seven years of
age is incapable of giving intelligent testimony.
Conclusive proof :When one fact is declared by the Act 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. A confession made by a person in the custody of a police
officer is conclusive proof against him.
The various presumptions are further described in Section 4 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Under this provision, the terms “presumptions of fact” and
“presumptions of law” are used differently.
Presumption of Facts: Inferences that are “naturally” and “reasonably”
drawn based on observations and conditions in the “course of basic
human conduct” are referred to as “presumptions of facts.” These are
also referred to as “natural or material assumptions” or “presumptions.”
Presumption of Law: According to the law itself, presumptions of law are
those
inferences and ideas that are established or assumed. Rebuttable
presumptions of law and irrefutable presumptions of law are two more
divisions that can be made.
Difference between ₹Presumption of fact and presumption of law
Presumption of Fact Presumption of Law
(₹)Presumption of fact is based on logic, human experience and law of
nature
Presumption of law is based on provision of law.
(₹)Presumption of fact is always rebuttable and goes away when
explained or rebutted by established of positive proof.
Presumption of law is conclusive unless rebutted as provided under rule
giving rise to presumption.
(₹)The position of presumption of fact is uncertain and transitory.
The position of presumption of law is certain and uniform.
(₹)The court can ignore presumption of law however strong it is.
The court can’t ignore presumption of law.
(₹)The presumptions of fact are derived on basis of law of nature,
prevalent customs and human experience.
Presumption of law are derived on established judicial norms and they
have become part of legal rules.
(₹)The Court can exercise its discretion while drawing presumption of fact
i.e. presumption of fact is discretionary
presumption. Presumption of law is mandatory i.e. court is bound to
draw presumption of law.
48848(8(
Rrjrjrj

@@&₹&))

Gkgkhmhm

()&&)
7. state the necessary ingredients for making dying declaration as valid
evidence
(₹)section 32(1) of the Evidence Act provides that when the statement is
made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any circumstances
of the transaction which resulted in his death, being relevant fact, is
admissible in evidence. Such statements are commonly known as dying
declaration.
(@)The elements of dying declaration are illustrated under section 32(1)
of the Indian Evidence Act. According to section 32(1) of the
IndianEvidence Act, dying declaration is a statement:
• Written or verbal, • Of relevant facts, • Made by a person who is dead.
Such statement is relevant when the statement is made by the person as
to: • The cause of his death. • Any circumstance of the transaction that
resulted in his death.
Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration The dying declaration is admitted
on the principle of “Nemo moriturns proesumitur mentiri” which means a
man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. A dying declaration is
substantive evidence and can be the sole ground of judgement. The
probative force of the dying declaration depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. If the court finds it is true and voluntary,
further corroboration may not be required. But when required and
necessary, it may be corroborated with other independent evidence.

(&)The evidentiary value of a dying declaration depends on the nature of

the case and its specific facts. In the case of Sham Shankar Kankaria v.
State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court recognized a person’s solemn
and serene nature on their deathbed, considering it a sufficient reason in
the law to accept the truthfulness of their declaration. Therefore, the
usual requirements of oath and cross-examination are not necessary.
Excluding a dying declaration from evidence could lead to a miscarriage of
justice as the victim is often the only eyewitness in serious crimes, leaving
the court without any other evidence.

@(@

(&)@)@)@)
8. when fact not otherwise relevant become relevant-comment
(₹)Plea of Alibi is a Latin word that means “elsewhere” or “somewhere
else”, The word ‘alibi’ is relevant in the studies of criminal and evidence
law. In evidence law, an alibi is a defence or an excuse used usually to
avert the blame or punishment given to the accused.
(₹)Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Section describes that facts
that are otherwise not relevant become relevant under the following
conditions:
(-)If such facts are inconsistent with any of the facts in the issue or
relevant facts of the case. (-)If such facts by themselves or in connection
with any other facts could make the existence or nonexistence of any
other facts in issue or relevant facts highly probable or highly improbable.

(₹)The question is whether the crime in Chennai was committed by A on a

certain day. Here, generally on that day, the fact of A being in Bombay is
relevant. It becomes relevant because the place where A was when the
crime took place is inconsistent with the place where the crime took
place. The impossibility of A to commit the crime that took place in
Chennai as he was in Bombay when the crime took place is the
inconsistency defined in Section 11(1).
(₹)Hence, the presence of the accused elsewhere is essentially
inconsistent with the alleged presence of the accused at the place of the
crime. From the above illustration, it is clear that the presence of A in
Bombay is inconsistent with the allegation that he has committed the
crime because for the completion of the crime, the presence of A is
required at the time of the commission of the crime.
Section 103: Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact:
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the burden of
proof as to any particular fact. According to this section, the burden of
proof lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence
of that fact unless a law specifies otherwise.
Example: If the question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a
certain day, the fact that A was in New Delhi on that day is relevant. The
burden of proving this fact lies on the person who asserts it.

₹(₹(₹(&(&(&(&(&
10.what is relevancy of judgement ? explain with relevant cases
(&)Relevancy of judgment” refers to the fact that each judgment is
grounded in the specific facts of each case. Simplistically put, it asserts
that every single case has unique significance. Every case is decided
according to its own facts; the decisions made in one case do not always
have to be connected to those in another. Even though it stems from the
same fact, a civil judgment has no bearing on a criminal prosecution. A
civil defamation case’s verdict has no bearing on a criminal prosecution.
The later case is unrelated to the earlier ruling. The case facts and the
criteria used to render a decision are given more weight.

(₹)Judgements of the court of justice are regarded as relevant in legal

proceedings when they pertain to public matters. A number of sections of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 address the applicability of justice court
rulings. These are a few of the important sections:
• Section 40: Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
• Section 41: Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc.,
jurisdiction
• Section 42: Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders, decrees, other
than those mentioned in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 43: Judgment, order, etc., other than those mentioned in
Section 40 to 42, when relevant.
The object of Section 40 is to save the time of the court and avoid the trial
of similar suits as well; in simple words, it provides that the existence of
previous judgment, order, or decree is a relevant fact.

For instance, if ‘x’ and ‘y’ are two parties, ‘x’ sues ‘y’ for fraud and the
court has decided the case in favour of ‘y’ but later ‘x’ again filed a suit
against ‘y’ for the same case. So, it can be said that once a judgment is
given by a court over a particular subject matter, that court has a right to
bar the trial of the case and here Section 40 will apply.
Section 41- Relevancy of certain judgment in probate, etc., jurisdiction
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that a final judgment, order, decree or
ruling of a court exercising probate (relating to will), matrimonial
(marriage, divorce), admiralty (war claims) or insolvency jurisdiction is
relevant.
This section consists of two parts: (.)It deals with judgement in rem i.e. a
kind of declaration about the status of a person and is effective to the
entire world whether he was a party or not. A judgement in personam is
when a judgment is given to the parties (e.g. a tort or a contract action)
which binds only the parties and is not relevant in any subsequent case.
Section 42- Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders, decrees, other
than those mentioned in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act
The effect of judgment or order will be relevant, except those which are
mentioned in section 42. Judgements are relevant if they are related to
matters of public nature. But such judgment, order or proclamation is not
conclusive proof of which they state.

(-)Illustration: – X sues Y for the murder of his brother i.e. Z. Y alleges the
existence of a public right of a licensed gun which he used for his
protection against Z. The existence of an order in favour of the defendant.
Similarly in a suit by B against A for the murder of C in which A alleged the
existence of the same right of way, is relevant but it is not conclusive
proof that the right way of existence.
Section 43- Judgment, order etc, other than those mentioned in Section
40 to 42, when relevant
Judgment, order or decree are irrelevant other than those mentioned in
section 40, 41 and 42. In this, the previous judgments are not relevant
with concern with the subsequent proceeding.
(-)Let us understand with an illustration. ‘X’ prosecutes ‘Y’ for stealing his
horse from him. ‘Y’ is convicted. Afterwards ‘X’ sues to ‘Z’ for the horse
which ‘Y’ had sold to ‘Z’ before his conviction. As between ‘X’ and ‘Z’, the
judgment which was against ‘Y’ is irrelevant.

Section 44- Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency

of court, may be proved.
Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a prior ruling that has
been established to have been the result of fraud, collusion (illegal or
covert cooperation), or incompetence of the court is not subject to res
judicata. A lawsuit or other legal action involves a minimum of two
parties. Any party may present any relevant judgment, order, or decree
under sections 40, 41, or 42.
(-)The act only stipulates that a judgment’s value may be rendered
ineffective in the event that any of the following three conditions are met:
• Incompetency of the court • If there is fraud • If there is collusion.
;&(&)&)&)&)&)&)&))&
12. relevancy of fact showing the existence of state of mind and state of
body.
section 14 of Indian Evidence Act- Facts showing the existence of a state
of mind, or of body, or bodily feeling are relevant in legal proceedings
when the existence of any such state of mind, body, or bodily feeling is in
issue or relevant.
Examples of facts showing the existence of a state of mind Section 14 of
Indian Evidence Act:
Intention: A person’s intention to commit a crime can be shown by their
actions and words leading up to the crime. For example, if someone is
caught with a gun and ammunition near the scene of a murder, it can be
inferred that they intended to commit murder.

Knowledge: A person’s knowledge of a fact can be shown by their prior

actions or statements. For example, if someone is found in possession of
stolen goods, it can be inferred that they knew the goods were stolen.
Good faith: A person’s good faith can be shown by their actions and
statements. For example, if someone makes a mistake on a contract, but
their actions and statements show that they were trying to be honest and
fair, it can be inferred that they were acting in good faith.
Negligence: A person’s negligence can be shown by their failure to take
reasonable care in a situation. For example, if someone is driving a car
and they hit a pedestrian because they were texting, it can be inferred
that they were negligent.

Rashness: A person’s rashness can be shown by their impulsive and

reckless actions. For example, if someone fires a gun without knowing if
anyone is in the line of fire, it can be inferred that they were acting rashly.

Ill-will: A person’s ill-will can be shown by their actions and statements.

For example, if someone threatens another person with violence, it can
be inferred that they have ill-will towards that person.

Goodwill: A person’s goodwill can be shown by their actions and

statements. For example, if someone helps someone else in need, it can
be inferred that they have goodwill towards that person.
Section 14 of Indian Evidence Act – Examples of facts showing the
existence of
a state of body or bodily feeling: Physical injury: A person’s physical
injury can be shown by medical records, witness testimony, and other
evidence. For example, if someone is in a car accident, their medical
records will show the extent of their injuries.

Mental illness: A person’s mental illness can be shown by medical

records, witness testimony, and other evidence. For example, if someone
is diagnosed with schizophrenia, their medical records will show their
symptoms and diagnosis.
Bodily feeling: A person’s bodily feeling can be shown by their actions and
statements. For example, if someone is in pain, they may cry out or wince.

Wilson v Pringle (1986) 161 CLR 1 In this case, the plaintiff sued the
defendant for negligence. The plaintiff claimed that he was injured when
he fell from a ladder that was not properly secured. The plaintiff used
evidence of his own physical injuries, including his
broken leg, to prove the element of damages. The defendant was found
liable for negligence.

These are just a few examples of how facts showing the existence of a
state of mind, body, or bodily feeling have been used in legal proceedings.
These facts can be important evidence in both criminal and civil cases.

;&&(&)&)(&(&)&)&)&)&)&

14. doctrine of judicial notice:The doctrine of judicial notice is that

certain facts do not need to be proved as the Court is deemed to have
knowledge of those facts. These facts are very general and well known by
everyone and proving them would be dishonour of the Court. It is stated
in Section 56 of the Act that facts that are judicially noticeable need not
be proved.
Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act says that the Court shall take
judicialnotice of these following facts:
1.All laws that are effective within the territory of India.
The Court is expected to know the law of the land. Any law that is in
force in the territory of the country must be known by the Court, and
either of the parties is not required to prove the existence of any such
law.
2.Even though India has become an independent country, we are still
bound to take judicial notice of all Acts of the British Parliament.
3. Articles of war for the Indian Army, Indian Navy or the Indian Air
Force.
Articles of war as provided under The Army Act, (46 of 1950).
4. The proceedings of the Parliament of the UK and India, along with all
other legislatures established in India.
5. The accession and the signed document of the Sovereign (King, Prime
Minister, President or any other head of the state) of the Uk, Great
Britain, and Ireland. The signed manual or document of the Sovereign of
the aforementioned countries need not be proved. These countries have
been incorporated, for the time being, other countries may be added
later.
6. All seals that English Courts will take judicial notice of, the seals of
every Court in India including the court of Admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction, seals of notaries, and seals of any person who is authorized
to use by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament of both UK and India.
7. he accession to office, names, titles, functions, and the signatures of
people acquiring a post in any public office on an ad hoc basis.
8. The existence of any country and its flag that is recognized by the
Government of India.
9. The division of time, geographical locations of the world, and cultural
festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette.
10.The law of the road at land and sea. The law of the road at land
means traffic rules. Vehicles should keep on the left side of the road
while driving is the rule of the road in India.
The law of the road at sea are the navigation rules, i.e:
• That ships and steamboats on meeting should pass on the left side of
each other to avoid the risk of collision.
• Small boats must stay away from big ships.
• Every ship overtaking another must keep a safe distance.

)@)@)@)&)))&;&(&)&)
16.concept of presumption as different offences
PRESUMPTION AS TO CERTAIN OFFENCES (Section 111-A)
Under this provision, where a person is accused of committing an offence
under (a) Section 121 (Waging or attempting to wage War or abetting
Waging of war against the Govt. of India),
(b) Section 121-A (Conspiracy to commit an offence of waging or abetting
to wage a War against the Govt. of India),
(c) Section 122 (Collecting arms etc., with the intention of waging war
against the Govt of India) and
(d) Section 123 (Concealing with intent to facilitate design to Wage War)
of the Indian Penal Code in any: area declared to be a disturbed area
under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for
the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of Public
Order.

PRESUMPTION AS TO ABETMENT OF SUICIDE BYA MARRIED WOMAN

(Section 113-A)
By virtue of this clause, the court may assume that a woman’s suicide was
encouraged or that she was exposed to cruelty by her husband or any of
his family if it occurs within seven years of the date of their marriage. The
husband or his kin is required to provide evidence to overcome the
assumption.
PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH (Section 113-B)
When the question arises whether a person has caused the dowry death
of the woman, if it is shown that prior to the death of such woman, she
had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with the dowry demand, the court shall raise a death.
PRESUMPTION AS TO ABSENCE OF CONSENT IN CERTAIN PROSECUTION
FORbRAPE (Section 114-A)
The new rule has the effect of giving the court a presumptive answer
when determining whether sexual activity between a man and woman
occurred with or without consent when the woman testifies in court that
it did not occur with her consent. The onus of demonstrating consent is
now placed on the accused. He commits a crime if he is unable to
demonstrate that there was consent.

@(&))&&&&&)&))8
19. importance of examination and explain three form of witness
examination.
The art of examination is where witness will be questioned to get the
statement or truth which will be favourable to decide the case. An
examination of the witness is done to find the truth or to check the
veracity of the facts said by the witness. In simple words examination of
witness is the process where relevant questions are asked related to the
fact in issue to a witness.
Witness examination
Witnesses will be questioned related to the fact in issue so, they are
required to answer the relevant questions presented to them. Their
answers to the questions put to him/her will be recorded, which are
called testimonies of witnesses. So, this questioning of the witness and
the recording of their answers will be called as witness examination.
Kinds of witness examination and their order
(Section 137 &138 of Indian evidence act) There are 3 kinds of witness
examination namely, (Section 137 Of Indian Evidence Act)
(₹)Examination In Chief (₹)Cross – Examination (₹)Re - Examination
Section 138 Of Indian Evidence Act There Is A Specific Order Followed For
Examining The Witness As Mentioned Under Section 138 Of Indian
Evidence Act.
Chief exam: Examination in chief or chief examination Here, witness is
first examined by the party or council who has called him as witness to
the court is known as examination in chief. In simple words, whoever
calling the witness for their favour and examining him is examination in
chief.
Illustration: If I have filed a complaint against someone, to represent me,
the state will prosecute, in prosecution they call witness and that witness
will give statement in favour of prosecution (of me). To that witness the
prosecution is questioning or examining is called Examination in chief and
this is the same happens in defence side as well.
Cross – examination After the completion of the chief examination, when
the prosecution has examined their witness and the witness to their
favour stated things, after that now it is the turn of the defence council to
examine the opposite party witness.
Examination of witness of opposite party is called Cross examination.
Main objects of Cross- examination:
• To weaken or destroy the case of opponent • Discredit the witness
• To establish the facts which the witness deposed in chief examination.
Re - examination
When there is any doubt in the answer given by the witness in the cross
examination, re-examination is conducted to get clarification.
Illustration:
If the prosecution council, make chief examination, then after that, the
witness is gone for cross - examination, but in cross - examination the
witness answer was in favour of opposite party, so to make some clarity
on that I go for Re- examination.
(Sec 141 of Indian evidence act) Question which always have some hints
and clue which used on witness for bringing the truth. It carries inbuilt
answers. Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it,
wishes or expects to receive is called Leading question. Leading questions
are prohibited to ask as witness must by himself answer every question
put forward to him.
Sec 142 of Indian evidence act If the court permits, Leading questions can
be asked during chief examination & re-examination but only to
introductory or undisputed matter. Discretion of court to decide when
question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer
(Section 148 of Indian evidence act) According to Section 132 of Indian
evidence act, whenever any question is
asked, he is compelled to answer but, in some circumstances, court"s
discretion is there to decide when question shall be asked & when
witness compelled to answer.
Indecent and scandalous questions
(Section 151 of Indian evidence act) Any kind of indecent & scandalous
questions cannot be asked, so the court can forbid any question which is
indecent or scandalous.
Sec 152 of Indian evidence act The court can forbid any question which
appears to be intended to insult or annoy or offensive in form
The Credibility can be shaken, but it must be done in a proper manner.
Judges power to put questions (Sec 165 of Indian evidence act :Judge
also have the power to examine the witness, to put forward question
before them (like prosecution & defence council).
Sec 165 of IEA, the judge may ask at any time any question he pleases to a
witness or parties any fact relevant or irrelevant questions.
@@&&₹₹&&&&₹@&@@₹@₹₹
20. scope of cross examination and the question lawfull during same
a. Testing Witness Credibility One of the primary functions of cross-
examination is to assess the credibility of the witness. This involves
challenging their reliability and trustworthiness, which can impact the
weight that the court assigns to their testimony.

b. Uncovering Inconsistencies Cross-examination allows the opposing

party to identify inconsistencies or contradictions in the witness’s
testimony. These inconsistencies can be used to undermine the
credibility of the witness.

c. Revealing Bias or Prejudice Cross-examination can expose any bias,

prejudice, or motive that the witness may have, which could influence
their testimony.

d. Clarifying Ambiguous or Vague Testimony Cross-examination can seek

clarification when the witness’s testimony is unclear or ambiguous. This
can help ensure that the court has a complete and accurate
understanding of the evidence.

e. Eliciting Favourable Information Cross-examination is not solely about

challenging the witness. It can also be used to elicit information that
supports the cross-examiner’s case or provides a more complete picture
of the events in-question.

Lawful question
Section 146 states that during cross-examination of a witness, he may be
in addition to the aforementioned questions also be asked questions that
try to:• Test his accuracy or truthfulness. • Understand more about the
witness and his position in life.• To shake his credit by questioning his
character.
Even though the answers to these questions have the capacity to directly
or indirectly criminate or expose him or directly or indirectly lead him to
penalty or forfeiture, the witness is compelled to answer such questions.
However, the section does not permit to adduce any evidence or ask any
questions in cross-examination that may include the victim’s moral
character or previous sexual experience with any person.
5&&(&(&((&&&((&&(&(&(&(&(
11. **Motive under evidence**:**Definition**: Motive refers to the
reason behind committing a crime. While not explicitly covered by the
Evidence Act, it helps establish intent and is considered in evaluating the
overall evidence to understand why the accused acted in a particular
manner.
12. **Conspiracy under IPC**:Definition**: Under **Section 120A** of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), conspiracy involves an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to achieve a legal act
through illegal means. Each conspirator is liable for actions taken in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
13. **Kashmira Singh vs. State of MP**: Case**: In **Kashmira Singh vs.
State of MP (1952)**, the Supreme Court ruled that a confession made by
one accused cannot be used as evidence against a co-accused. This
decision ensures fairness and prevents one accused’s confession from
unduly influencing another’s trial.
14. **Shall presume**:Definition**: “Shall presume” means the court
must accept a fact as true unless disproved. **Section 113** provides for
presumptions of law or fact, creating a legal standard where certain
facts are assumed true until evidence is presented to the contrary.
15. **Explanatory facts**:
- **Definition**: Explanatory facts provide context or clarification to
other evidence. They help in understanding the circumstances
surrounding a case and making sense of the primary evidence,
ensuring a clearer narrative and aiding in accurate legal conclusions.
16. **Conduct of party as relevant fact**: **Definition**: Conduct is
relevant under **Section 8**, which includes actions or behavior as
part of the res gestae. A party’s conduct before, during, or after an event
can provide important context and influence the case's outcome by
demonstrating intent or state of mind.
17. **Child witness**:**Definition**: A child witness is someone under
18 who provides testimony in court. While the Indian Evidence Act does
not specifically address child witnesses, general principles of competency
and credibility apply, requiring the court to assess their understanding
and reliability.
18. **Character when relevant**: **Definition**: Character evidence is
relevant under **Section 54** and **Section 55**. In criminal cases,
evidence of a person's character can be used to show propensity to
commit certain crimes or to assess the credibility of a witness.
19. **Expert opinion as conclusive proof**: **Definition**: Expert
opinion assists the court but is not conclusive proof. **Section 45**
allows experts to provide opinions on specialized matters, but the court
evaluates these opinions in the context of all evidence presented and is
not bound by them.
20. **Jain Hawala Case**: **Case**: The Jain Hawala Case (1991)
involved corruption allegations based on hawala transactions. The case
underscored the importance of concrete evidence and the challenges of
proving financial misconduct, highlighting issues related to admissibility
and proof in corruption cases.
21. **Judgment in personam**:Definition**: A judgment in personam
affects specific individuals involved in the case. It is binding only on the
parties to the litigation and does not impact the rights of third parties,
addressing personal rights and obligations, such as in contract disputes.
22. **Judgment in rem**: Definition**: A judgment in rem determines
the status or rights related to property or a legal status, affecting all
individuals. It establishes rights enforceable against everyone, such as
rulings on property ownership or bankruptcy, impacting public or
property rights.
23. **Latent ambiguity**:Definition**: Latent ambiguity occurs when a
document is clear on its face but unclear in application to specific facts.
**Section 93** of the Indian Evidence Act allows extrinsic evidence to
clarify the meaning of ambiguous documents or statements when applied
to facts.
24. **Scientific examination**:**Definition**: Scientific examination
involves analyzing evidence using scientific methods. This includes
forensic tests, DNA analysis, and other techniques to establish facts or
validate evidence. It supports the court in understanding complex
technical aspects and determining case outcomes.
25. **Legitimacy of child born to P and Y**: - **Definition**: Under
**Section 112** of the Indian Evidence Act, a child born within 280 days
of the dissolution of marriage is presumed legitimate if the mother was
not married during that period. Thus, 'Z', born five months after P married
Y, is considered legitimate.
26. **Judicial notice**: - **Definition**: Judicial notice involves
recognizing certain facts as true without requiring formal proof. **Section
56** of the Indian Evidence Act allows courts to take judicial notice of
facts that are commonly known or established and undisputed, such as
historical facts or geographical information.
27. **Dowry death under criminal laws**: **Definition**: Dowry death,
defined under **Section 304B** of the IPC, refers to a woman's death
caused by burns or injury within seven years of marriage, linked to dowry-
related harassment. It involves proving that the woman was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or in- laws.
28. **Questions of corroboration**:**Definition**: Corroboration
involves additional evidence supporting the primary evidence. **Section
114** of the Indian Evidence Act allows the court to draw presumptions
and consider. corroborative evidence to strengthen the credibility and
reliability of the main evidence presented in a case.
29. **Proof of custom**: Definition**: Proof of custom involves
demonstrating that a practice is long-standing and
widely accepted. **Section 57** allows for the proof of customs and
traditions by presenting evidence of consistent practice, witness
testimony, and historical records to establish customary laws.
30. **Burden of proof**:**Definition**: The burden of proof refers to
the obligation to prove claims in a legal proceeding. **Section 101** of
the Indian Evidence Act states that the party making a claim has the
burden to prove it. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
31. **Estoppel under Indian Evidence Act**: **Definition**: Estoppel
prevents a party from denying or contradicting previously acknowledged
facts. **Section 115** allows for estoppel based on previous statements
or conduct, ensuring that parties cannot challenge facts they have
previously accepted or represented as true.
32. **May presume**: **Definition**: "May presume" allows the court
to assume a fact is true based on specific conditions. **Section 113**
provides for presumptions of law or fact, giving the court discretion to
accept presumptions unless.