Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law

During a fraud probe, a forensic auditor relies on a document produced before the Court that purports to be a record of a witness's evidence in a judicial proceeding, and purports to be signed by the Magistrate who took it. Under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, what must the Court presume?

The Court must presume three things: the document is genuine, the signer's statements on the circumstances of taking are true, and the evidence was duly taken. It does not presume that the witness's account is factually correct, only that the record is regular.

  1. AThat the document is genuine, that statements about the circumstances of its taking are true, and that the evidence was duly takenCorrect
  2. BOnly that the document is genuine, leaving the rest to be proved
  3. CThat the witness's statement is factually true in every detail
  4. DThat the document is primary evidence because it is signed

Explanation

Section 79 requires the Court to presume three things: the document is genuine, the signer's statements about the circumstances of taking are true, and the evidence was duly taken. The presumption does not make the witness's testimony true in substance, and it is not limited to genuineness alone.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence LawFree diagnostic mock

More Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law questions