Mid Term Examination, September- 2016 B.A.LL.B. (HONS.) SEMESTER VII LAW OF EVIDENCE Max. Marks: 20 Max. Time: 1:30 Hrs. Note: Answer any TWO questions out of three. All questions carry equal marks.

1. The accused Raban Lalu had killed his wife with an axe. His son aged 5 years was besides him. He made a cry that his father was killing his mother. His cry attracted the witnesses to the spot and found the accused with an axe in his hand and his wife lying near him. Witnesses sort to depose as to what the child had said. The statement of the child was held relevant. Explain under which provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the said statement will be relevant with the help of the relevant case laws, if any. (Marks 04) Entries in the diary showing certain payments made to a political leader were not admitted as evidence. The diary showed no ways on which the payments were supposed to have been made. Such diary cannot be regarded as book maintained in the regular course of business. Discuss the relevancy and admissibility of the entries in the diary in the light of relevant provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and relevant case laws, if any. (Marks 06)

The applicant Iravva was wife of the deceased Gurupadappa. They were married in 1948. Since she did not bear any child her husband illegally married another woman who deserted him. Then he brought another woman and filed a suit for divorce on the ground that his wife was suffering from veneral disease in communicable form. This allegation was false. The summons was not served on the applicant and obtained ex-parte decree of divorce. Later on Gurupadappa died. His brother claimed his property as the only heir. The wife came to know about it. She filed an application under O 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the decree of divorce obtained by the husband. Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 such judgment is conclusive. The trail court held that the application was not maintainable and dismissed the petition, but the High Court, in appeal held that the application was maintainable and order the trail court to consider on the merit. In the light of the above stated facts discuss the validity of the decision of the High Court in the light of relevant provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and relevant case laws, if any. (Marks 05) The accused while travelling by a train entered into a conversation with the guard of the train, Mr. Boodrie representing himself to be the Diwan of the Narhan Raj and informed Boodrie that the post of the manager to the Estate on a monthly salary of Rs. 300 p.m. was vacant but a security deposit of Rs. 1690 was required. Boodrie expressed his desire to apply for the post but said that he was able to pay only Rs. 70 as security which the accused accepted. On the next day Boodrie sent the money by money order on his residence and was duly received. The accused then arranged his interview at a dak bungalow and Boodrie was informed that Raja was prepared to accept Rs. 100 as security. According he paid the balance of Rs. 30. Afterwards Boordrie learnt that the accused had also attempted to obtain money from an Assistant station master on similar representation. In fact he had no connection with Narhan Raj at that time though two or three years before he had been Diwan to the estate for a short period. At the relevant time the estate was under the control of Court of Wards and therefore no post of manager was vacant. At the trail the evidence of the following three similar but unconnected instances was admitted:-
On another occasion the accused told another station master that he was manager to the estate of Raja Durgaprasad and that a post of Tehsildar on a salary of Rs. 50 per month was vacant. He could get his appointed if he pays security deposit of Rs. 300. The sum was sent to him but his son could not get employment. He threatened the accused with the criminal action and he returned Rs. 200. ii) On the second occasion he represented himself to be the manager of Darbhanga Raj and told a carriage examiner Mr. Gideon that he could get him appointed as Sub Manager on a salary of Rs. 300 per month if he could deposit Rs. 500. Gideon consulted his pleader and was advised not to send money before he was actually appointed. iii) On the third occasion he represented to Mehboob Husain, an Assistant Station master that he was manager of Tikari Raj and could obtain for him Tehsildarship for Rs. 50 per month on deposit of Rs. 300 as security. The application was written down and was to be send to the accused along with security money. However, Boodrie overheard the conversation and advised him not to send the money. The accused was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Magistrate but Session Judge acquitted him on the ground that there was no direct evidence in support of the charge and evidence of similar instances of Cheating or Attempting to cheat was in admissible. An appeal was preferred to the Apex Court. Decide the appeal in the light of relevant provision of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and relevant case laws, if any. (Marks 05)

3. At the trial of A for murder of husband B by administering arsenic to him, evidence is offered to show that:- (Marks 2×5=10) A is in the habit of poisoning people. A had in similar circumstances administered arsenic to two or her children. B had shortly before his death stated that he had been poisoned by his wife, but had not complained about it. A and B used to have frequent quarrels. B had three days before his death written a letter to a friend complaining of his falling health. Discuss, whether the evidence offered is admissible and relevant in any of these cases?