Which of the following is NOT an evidence under the Indian Evidence Act?

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

Step 1: Understand the question.
Which of the listed items is NOT treated as evidence under the law of evidence?

Step 2: Recall what counts as evidence.
Oral statements made in court, documents, and confessions are all recognised forms of evidence.

Step 3: Examine hearsay.
Hearsay is when a witness repeats what someone else said outside court to prove its truth. Since that other person cannot be cross-examined, hearsay is generally not allowed.

Step 4: Apply the rule.
Because hearsay is generally inadmissible (with only narrow exceptions), it is the item that is not proper evidence.

Step 5: Conclude.
The answer is hearsay.

Answer: Hearsay

Which of the following is NOT an evidence under the Indian Evidence Act?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in TS LAWCET exam