Question

A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. – under which section of the India Evidence Act.

• A. Section 12
• B. Section 6
• C. Section 5
• D. Section 9

Hint:

Section 6 allows the inclusion of all facts that form part of the same transaction, even if a person is not present for every event.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
In this case, A is accused of waging war against the Government of India, and the question involves determining the relevance of facts related to an armed insurrection (e.g., property destruction, troop attacks) even if A was not present at all instances. The focus is on identifying the section of the Indian Evidence Act that allows such facts to be considered as part of the same transaction.
Step 2: Conclusion.
Thus, Section 6 is applicable as it deals with facts forming part of the same transaction, making them relevant even if the accused was not present at every event.