Question:medium

Principle: Oral evidence must always be direct i.e. of the person who says he saw the event and hearsay evidence is no evidence.
Facts: X was told by Y (whom X trusts) that Z has murdered A
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • Statement of X is admissible
  • Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A
  • Statement of X is admissible because he trusts Y and Y never tells a lie
  • Statement of X is admissible because he is a renowned social activist and has a huge reputation to fight for the truth
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

The principle sets a clear line, oral evidence counts only if it comes from someone who personally saw the event described, and anything passed along secondhand, however sincerely believed, is hearsay and carries no evidentiary weight.

Trace where X's knowledge actually comes from. He did not see Z murder A, what he has is Y's account of it, relayed to him because X trusts Y. That chain, event to Y's observation to Y telling X, means X's own statement in court would be reporting what Y said, not reporting what X witnessed, which is exactly the secondhand structure the principle excludes.

Neither X's trust in Y, nor X's own standing and reputation as a social activist, changes where the information originated. The test is about the source of the knowledge, direct observation versus something relayed, and on that test X's statement falls on the inadmissible side regardless of how credible X or Y might otherwise seem.

So the correct answer is Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Checking what fact would need to be different for each option to hold makes the source of X's knowledge decisive.

  1. Statement of X is admissible: This would only work if X had personally witnessed the murder, but his knowledge comes entirely from what Y told him, so the fact this option needs, direct observation by X, simply is not there.
  2. Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A: No change is needed, X's knowledge already comes only from Y's account rather than from anything X saw himself, which is exactly the hearsay structure the principle excludes.
  3. Statement of X is admissible because he trusts Y and Y never tells a lie: This would only matter if trust in the source converted secondhand information into direct evidence, but the principle tests the source of the knowledge, not how credible that source seems to the listener.
  4. Statement of X is admissible because he is a renowned social activist and has a huge reputation to fight for the truth: This would only matter if the witness's own reputation were part of the test, but the principle is concerned with whether the evidence is direct, which has nothing to do with X's standing.

Since X's knowledge is already established as secondhand and none of the three alternative conditions actually change where that knowledge came from, the option finding the statement inadmissible is the one that fits.

Therefore, the correct answer is Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution