The Burden Of Proof MCQ Quiz in मराठी - Objective Question with Answer for The Burden Of Proof - मोफत PDF डाउनलोड करा

The correct answer is Section 106

Key Points

• Section 106: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
• In this case:
  • Whether ‘A’ had a ticket or not is a fact especially within his own knowledge, not the prosecution’s.
  • The railway authority can prove that he was found traveling without producing a ticket, but ‘A’ alone knows whether he actually had one or not. Hence, the burden of proving he had a valid ticket lies on ‘A’, as per Section 106.

Additional Information

• Section 102: Deals with general rule about burden of proof — lies on the party who would fail if no evidence is given.
• Section 107: Concerns the presumption of a person being alive if alive within the last 30 years.
• Section 108: Applies when a person is not heard of for seven years, then presumption of death arises.

The correct answer is Presumption of legitimacy

Key Points

• Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Presumption of legitimacy of child:
  • If a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage between its mother and any man, or within 280 days after its dissolution, and the mother remains unmarried,
  • It shall be conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of that man.
• Conclusive proof:This is a conclusive presumption of law unless it is shown that the husband had no access to the wife during the time the child could have been conceived.
• Purpose: It is aimed at protecting the legitimacy of children born in wedlock and promoting social stability.

Additional Information

• Presumption of life – Not covered under Section 112; related to legal assumptions of continued existence (not in this section).
• Presumption of marriage – Not specifically dealt with in Section 112; governed by other legal doctrines or facts.
• Presumption of death – Not dealt with under Section 112; typically inferred after 7 years of disappearance (under general law or other legal provisions).

The correct answer is Section 113-B

Key Points

• Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act provides for “Presumption as to dowry death.”
• If a woman dies due to burns, bodily injury, or under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with a demand for dowry,
  • The court shall presume that the husband or his relatives caused the dowry death.
• This presumption is mandatory, provided the above conditions are met, and it aids in the prosecution of dowry-related offences.
• It complements Section 304-B of the IPC, which defines and punishes dowry death

Additional Information 

• Section 111-A: Deals with presumption as to certain offences under the Indian Penal Code like terrorism, not dowry death.
• Section 112: Presumes the legitimacy of a child born during or within 280 days of a valid marriage.
• Section 113-A: Deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, not directly dowry death.

The correct answer is Section 101-114 A of Indian Evidence Act

Key Points

• Section 101 to 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically deal with the 'Burden of Proof'.
• These provisions cover:
  • Section 101: Who bears the burden of proof.
  • Section 102–103: When the burden shifts.
  • Section 104–105: Burden in special cases (e.g. exceptions, insanity).
  • Section 106–114A: Presumptions affecting burden of proof (including presumption in rape cases under 114A).
• These sections form the core framework for evidentiary responsibility in both civil and criminal trials.

Additional Information

• Section 91–100: Deal with documentary evidence, not burden of proof.
• Section 84–90: Relate to presumptions about documents and electronic records, not general burden of proof.
• Section 115–118: Concern estoppel and witness competence, not burden of proof.

The correct answer is Tukaram V. State of Maharashtra

Key Points

• The Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra case involved the custodial rape of a young tribal girl named Mathura by two policemen.
• The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, stating that Mathura had not raised an alarm and there was no proof of resistance, implying consent.
• This judgment triggered nationwide protests by legal scholars, activists, and women's groups, highlighting the bias and inadequacy in rape laws.
• As a result, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 was enacted, and Section 114-A was inserted in the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 114-A states that if the victim says there was no consent, the court shall presume the absence of consent in cases of custodial rape, gang rape, etc.

Additional Information

• Moginbai v. State of Gujarat – Related to consent in rape, but not the direct reason for insertion of Section 114-A.
• Harpal Singh Case – Concerned a minor’s rape and application of statutory rape provisions, not custodial rape.
• Pramod Mehto Case – Not related to the introduction of Section 114-A.

The correct answer is presumption as to dowry death.

Key Points

• Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1324 deals with the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Supreme Court in this case clarified the conditions under which the court can draw a presumption that the death of a woman was due to dowry harassment if it occurs within 7 years of marriage.
• This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that the death was not caused by dowry-related cruelty or harassment.

Additional Information

• Presumption as to legitimacy: Relates to the assumption that a child born during marriage is legitimate, under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
• Presumption as to rape: Relates to legal presumptions about consent and commission of rape under relevant laws, not discussed in this case.
• Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman: Covered under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which deals with presumption of abetment of suicide if a married woman commits suicide within 7 years of marriage due to cruelty.

The correct answer is 1986

Key Points

• Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • This section deals with the presumption of dowry death.
  • It states that if a woman dies within 7 years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry, the court shall presume that it is a dowry death.
• Introduced by:
  • The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 added Section 113-B to the Indian Evidence Act.
• Purpose:
  • To strengthen the legal framework against dowry-related harassment and deaths.
  • It shifts the burden of proof to the husband and his relatives once certain conditions are met.
• Connected Provisions:
  • It complements Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines dowry death as a specific criminal offence.

Additional Information

• Option 1. 1983: This amendment introduced Section 498-A IPC, dealing with cruelty by husband or relatives—not Section 113-B.
• Option 2. 1984: No significant amendment to the Indian Evidence Act regarding dowry death occurred in this year.
• Option 3. 2000: This is too recent; Section 113-B was already in place by then.

The correct answer is dying declaration.

Key Points

• A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, explaining the circumstances that led to their death.
• It is considered valid evidence in a court of law under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The rationale for admitting such statements is the belief that a person on their deathbed would not lie, as they are aware of their impending death.
• The declaration can be oral, written, or even through gestures and signs, provided it is deemed clear and unambiguous.
• A dying declaration does not require corroboration if it is found to be true and reliable by the court.

Additional Information

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The legal framework governing the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, including dying declarations.
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: Allows the admission of a dying declaration as evidence in cases where the cause of death is in question.
• Credibility of a Dying Declaration: Courts assess the reliability of the statement based on the condition of the deceased and the clarity of the declaration.
• Recording of a Dying Declaration: Ideally, a magistrate records the declaration, but it can also be recorded by a doctor or any person present, depending on the situation.
• Exceptions: If a dying declaration is inconsistent or influenced by external factors, it may lose its evidentiary value in court.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key PointsSection 103 of the Indian Evidence Act:  Burden of proof as to particular fact. ––
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustrations
(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
(b) B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

The correct answer is 'Never shifts'.

Key Points

• Burden of introducing evidence under Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  • Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the burden of proof and specifies the party who must initially provide evidence to support their claims in a legal dispute.
  • The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party to prove the facts in issue in a case.
  • According to Sec. 102, the burden of introducing evidence never shifts from the party on whom it initially rests. This party must continue to provide sufficient evidence to support their case throughout the trial.
  • This is crucial to ensure that the party making a claim or assertion provides adequate proof before the court, maintaining fairness in the judicial process.

Additional Information

• Shifts only once:
  • This option is incorrect as the burden of introducing evidence does not shift once or at any point during the trial. It remains with the party who initially had it.
• Constantly shifts:
  • This option is incorrect because the burden of introducing evidence does not constantly move between parties. It is fixed with the party responsible for proving their claims.
• Occasionally shifts:
  • This option is incorrect as the burden of introducing evidence does not shift occasionally. The burden remains with the party who has to prove the issue throughout the proceedings.