Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Evidence

Witness W testified in a first judicial proceeding between P and Q, where Q cross-examined him, and the questions in issue were substantially the same. In a later proceeding between the same parties, W cannot be found. Under Section 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, what is the position of W's earlier testimony?

W's earlier testimony is relevant to prove the truth of the facts stated. Section 27 covers a witness who cannot be found, and the proviso is satisfied: same parties, opportunity to cross-examine, and substantially the same questions in issue.

  1. AIt is irrelevant because W was not examined afresh
  2. BIt is relevant only if W is dead, not if he cannot be found
  3. CIt is relevant only if the court first obtains the consent of both parties
  4. DIt is relevant to prove the truth of the facts it states, as the conditions of the proviso are metCorrect

Explanation

Section 27 makes such evidence relevant when the witness is dead or cannot be found, among other grounds. The proviso requires the same parties or their representatives in interest, a right and opportunity to cross-examine, and substantially the same questions in issue. All are met, so option B is wrong because 'cannot be found' is itself a ground.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

Practise Law relating to EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Evidence questions