KSLU Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Law of Evidence) Past Questions & Exam Topics
KSLU Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Law of Evidence) Past Questions & Exam Topics
To crack the KSLU exam for Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Law of Evidence), analyzing past trends is crucial. Below is a unit-wise breakdown of theory and problem questions compiled from KSLU semester papers.
How to read the map:
- ⭐⭐⭐ : Asked 5+ times — Must Cover
- ⭐⭐ : Asked 3–4 times — High Priority
- ⭐ : Asked 1–2 times
[16M]/[10M]: Essay marks[6M]/[SN]: Short notes / brief topics[Prob]: Solved problem fact patterns
📅 Unit 1 — Introduction, Relevancy & Admissions
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic (BSA § ← IEA §) | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Meaning & kinds of evidence; evidence in civil v. criminal; relevancy v. admissibility (S.2, S.5 ← IEA Ss 3, 5) | [16M] what is evidence / define evidence & kinds 2012(100),2014(100),2018(100),2019(100),2021(100),2022(100); BSA 2025(80); define & distinguish oral/documentary/direct/circumstantial 2025-June(80); “rules of evidence same in civil & criminal” 2015(100),2017(100); BSA 2025(80); distinguish relevancy v. admissibility 2019(100),2021(100); SN 2022(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.2 | Facts forming part of same transaction — Res gestae (S.4 ← IEA S.6) | [16M] relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction / doctrine of Res gestae 2012(100),2013(100),2015(100),2016(100),2019(100),2020(100),2022(100),2024(80); BSA 2026; SN 2019(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.3 | Motive, preparation & conduct (S.6 ← IEA S.8) | [16M] relevancy of facts showing motive, preparation & conduct 2014(100),2016(100),2017(100),2018(100),2021(80),2024(80); SN motive/preparation/conduct 2026(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.4 | Occasion, cause & effect; state of mind/body; introductory & explanatory facts; facts not otherwise relevant (Ss 5, 7, 9, 14 ← IEA Ss 7, 9, 14, 11) | [16M] occasion/cause/effects 2023(80); state of mind or body 2015(100),2022(80); introductory/explanatory facts 2013(100),2019(100); facts not otherwise relevant becoming relevant 2020(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.5 | May presume / shall presume / conclusive proof (S.2(1) ← IEA S.4) | [16M]/[SN] explain “may presume”, “shall presume” & “conclusive proof” 2014(100),2016(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80); [16M] meaning of S.4 IEA terms 2025-June(80) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.6 | Admissions — definition; persons whose admissions are relevant; evidentiary value (Ss 15–21 ← IEA Ss 17–23) | [16M] define admission; persons whose admissions are relevant 2012(100),2013(100),2015(100),2017(100),2019(100),2021(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80); when statements of third persons are admissions 2012(100); relevancy of admissions in civil case 2014(100); rules relating to relevancy of admission 2025-Feb(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.7 | Admission v. confession (distinction) (Ss 15/22 ← IEA Ss 17/24) | [16M]/[SN] distinction between admission and confession 2012(100),2014(100),2020(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.8 | Test Identification Parade; Plea of Alibi (S.9 ← IEA S.9/S.11) | [SN] Test Identification Parade 2022(80),2025-Feb(80); [SN] plea of alibi 2025-Feb(80) ⭐ |
| 1.9 | Salient features & applicability of the BSA; substantive v. procedural law (BSA Preamble/S.1) | (syllabus topic; not yet asked discretely under old IEA papers — likely first asked under BSA; cover in notes) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Problems whose core issue sits in Unit 1 (relevancy / admissions).
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels; decoy in italics) | Key issue (BSA §) |
|---|---|---|
| P-I-1 · 2012(100), 2022(80) | ‘A’ tried for murder of ‘B’ by poison; before B’s death A procured poison similar to that administered to B. Relevant? Decoy: act before the death. | Preparation / facts showing course of conduct (S.6 ← IEA S.8) |
| P-I-2 · 2012(100) | Horse sold by A to B; A tells B “ask C, C knows”; C says the horse is not sound. Is C’s statement admissible? Decoy: hearsay from a third person. | Admission by a referee/agent expressly referred to (S.18 ← IEA S.20) |
| P-I-3 · 2013(100) | Whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a day; fact that on that day A was at Lahore. Relevant? Decoy: a far-away place. | Plea of alibi; facts inconsistent / making existence highly improbable (S.9/S.11 ← IEA S.11) |
| P-I-4 · 2013(100), 2019(100) | Whether A robbed B; shortly before the robbery B went to a shop with money and showed it to third persons. Relevant? Decoy: conduct of the victim, not accused. | Facts showing state of things / preparation & occasion (S.5/S.6 ← IEA S.7/S.8) |
| P-I-5 · 2012(100), 2021(80) | A charged with shooting at B with intent to kill; prosecution proves A had previously shot at B / marks on ground from a prior fight between A and B. Relevant? Decoy: a previous, separate act. | Facts showing intention/motive/preparation (S.6 ← IEA S.8) |
| P-I-6 · 2012(100), 2024(80) | A accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them stolen; wants to prove he refused to sell them below market value. Can he? Decoy: self-serving conduct. | Relevancy of subsequent conduct (S.6 ← IEA S.8) |
| P-I-7 · 2014(100), 2017(100), 2018(100), 2024(80), 2018-Dec(100) | A accused of a crime; prosecution shows he absconded immediately after the incident; can A prove he had urgent work then / Belagavi reality-show alibi (2023)? Decoy: absconding = guilt. | Conduct (S.6) explained by alibi/innocent explanation; plea of alibi (S.9) |
| P-I-8 · 2014(100), 2025-June(80) | A wants to adduce oral evidence to prove the genuineness of a document. Can he? Decoy: orality where a document exists. | Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence (S.94 ← IEA S.91) — (answer cross-refs Unit 3) |
| P-I-9 · 2025-June(80) | A hears C has been murdered, goes to spot, four persons carrying C’s body tell him “B murdered C and ran away.” Does their statement form part of Res gestae? Decoy: hearsay narration after the event. | Res gestae — contemporaneity (S.4 ← IEA S.6) |
| P-I-10 · 2022(80), 2025(80) | X hit by a speedy vehicle, severely injured; Y deposes he saw the vehicle but not the accident, and X explained the accident to him. Is X’s statement to Y relevant? Decoy: Y is not an eyewitness to the accident. | Res gestae / statement as to cause of injury (S.4 / S.26(a) ← IEA S.6/S.32) |
| P-I-11 · 2022(80) | A sues B to recover a loan; B denies; A wants to prove his own earlier statement to C that he lent the loan to B. Can he? Decoy: self-serving prior statement. | Admissions cannot be proved by the maker in his own favour (S.19 ← IEA S.21) |
📅 Unit 2 — Confessions, Dying Declaration & Expert Evidence
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic (BSA § ← IEA §) | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Confession — meaning, forms, relevancy & admissibility; confession to police (Ss 22–23 ← IEA Ss 24–26) | [16M] what is confession / relevancy & admissibility of confessions / confession before police 2013(100),2016(100),2018-Dec(100),2025-Feb(80); “no confession to a police officer shall be proved” — comment & exceptions 2017(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.2 | Confession of co-accused (S.24 ← IEA S.30) | [16M] evidentiary value of confession of co-accused 2018(100); [SN] confession by co-accused 2017(100),2018-Dec(100),2019(100),2021(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.3 | Information received from accused in custody — discovery; extra-judicial confession (S.23(2) ← IEA S.27 / S.24) | [16M] extra-judicial confession — meaning & requisites 2022(100); (discovery proviso tested via problems P-II-2) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.4 | Dying declaration — meaning, conditions, relevancy & evidentiary value (S.26(a) ← IEA S.32(1)) | [16M] what is dying declaration / conditions for relevancy / its importance 2013(100),2015(100),2017(100),2018(100),2019(100),2021(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80); [SN] dying declaration 2017(100),2020(100),2022(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.5 | Statements of relevant fact by persons who are dead or cannot be found (S.26(b)–(h) ← IEA S.32) | [16M] cases in which statements of a person dead/not found are relevant 2014(100) ⭐ |
| 2.6 | Relevance of judgments — general principle & exceptions (Ss 34–38 ← IEA Ss 40–44) | [16M] circumstances in which judgments of courts become relevant / when previous judgments relevant 2015(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.7 | Expert testimony — who is an expert, when opinion relevant, evidentiary value, types, Examiner of Electronic Evidence (Ss 39–45 ← IEA Ss 45–51) | [16M] who is an expert / when expert opinion relevant / evidentiary value of expert opinion / types 2014(100),2016(100),2017(100),2019(100),2020(100),2021(100),2022(100); BSA 2025-June ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.8 | Opinion of third persons generally (Ss 39–45 ← IEA Ss 45–51) | [16M] circumstances in which opinion of third persons becomes relevant 2016(100) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Problems whose core issue sits in Unit 2 (confession / dying declaration / statements by the dead / expert / judgments).
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels; decoy in italics) | Key issue (BSA §) |
|---|---|---|
| P-II-1 · 2016(100), 2019(100) | A is accused of murder of C; during trial A confesses “I and B murdered C.” Can this confession be considered against B/co-accused? Decoy: a confession that names another. | Confession of co-accused — evidentiary value (S.24 ← IEA S.30) |
| P-II-2 · 2016(100), 2018-Dec(100), 2021(100) | ‘X’, in police custody, states “I killed Pooja with an axe; I removed the ornaments and hid them”; ornaments are recovered. Extent of relevancy of this statement? Decoy: a confession to police. | Discovery — how much of the information is provable (S.23(2) ← IEA S.27) |
| P-II-3 · 2026(80) | Evidentiary value of a tape-recorded conversation. Decoy: a mechanical recording, not oral testimony. | Admissibility/weight of electronic record; corroboration (S.26/S.63) |
| P-II-4 · 2025(80), 2025-Feb(80) | Relevancy of a relevant judgment / confession made in police custody (short-note problems). | Relevance of judgments (Ss 34–38); confession to police (S.23) |
| P-II-5 · 2018(100) | A suicide note found in the husband’s house; decide the relevancy of the suicide note (dowry-death context). Decoy: a written note, maker dead. | Dying declaration / statement as to cause of death (S.26(a) ← IEA S.32) |
📅 Unit 3 — Character, Oral & Documentary Evidence
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic (BSA § ← IEA §) | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Character evidence — relevance in civil & criminal cases (Ss 46–50 ← IEA Ss 52–55) | [16M] relevance of character evidence in civil & criminal cases / discuss the provisions / relevancy of character evidence 2014(100),2016(100),2018(100),2018-Dec(100),2020(100),2021(100); [SN] character evidence 2017(100),2022(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.2 | Primary & secondary evidence; scope; electronic/digital records within primary evidence (Ss 56–58 ← IEA Ss 62–63) | [16M] define primary & secondary evidence / “documents must be proved by primary evidence” — explain & exceptions / scope; framework for electronic & digital records as primary 2014(100),2016(100),2019(100),2020(100),2022(100); BSA 2025(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.3 | Cases in which secondary evidence is admissible (Ss 58–60 ← IEA Ss 65, 65A/65B) | [16M] circumstances in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given 2014(100),2016(100),2018-Dec(100),2021(100),2024(80); BSA 2026(80) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.4 | Proof of documents — public & private documents; how proved (Ss 64–93 ← IEA Ss 74–78) | [16M] proof of public documents / public v. private documents & how proved 2014(100),2017(100),2019(100); BSA 2026(80); [SN] public document 2015(100),2016(100),2017(100),2019(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.5 | Oral evidence must be direct (Ss 54–55 ← IEA Ss 59–60) | [16M] “oral evidence must in all cases be direct” — explain with exceptions 2017(100),2019(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 3.6 | Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence (Ss 94–103 ← IEA Ss 91–100) | [16M] elucidate exclusion of oral by documentary evidence / provisions relating to exclusion 2018(100); BSA 2025(80),2026(80) ⭐⭐ |
| 3.7 | Framework for admissibility of electronic / digital records (Ss 61–63 ← IEA S.65B) | [16M] framework for admissibility of electronic & digital records under the BSA BSA 2025(80) ⭐⭐ (new BSA emphasis) |
| 3.8 | Facts which need not be proved; judicial notice (Ss 51–53 ← IEA Ss 56–58) | [SN] facts admitted need not be proved — explain 2026(80) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Problems whose core issue sits in Unit 3 (character / oral / documentary / secondary / proof of documents).
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels; decoy in italics) | Key issue (BSA §) |
|---|---|---|
| P-III-1 · 2015(100), 2016(100), 2017(100), 2018(100) | The accused charged with rape seeks to produce a fact indicating the loose/immoral character of the complainant (prosecutrix). Is it relevant/admissible? Decoy: bad character of the victim. | Character of the prosecutrix barred in sexual-offence cases (S.50/proviso ← IEA S.53A/S.155) |
| P-III-2 · 2016(100) | A’s books of account show entries of an amount; are the entries relevant to fix B’s liability? Decide. Decoy: a party’s own account books. | Entries in books of account — relevant but not alone sufficient to charge (S.28 / proof of documents) |
| P-III-3 · 2014(100), 2025-June(80) | A wants to prove the genuineness of a document by oral evidence. Can he? Decoy: orality where a document exists. | Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence (S.94 ← IEA S.91) |
📅 Unit 4 — Burden of Proof, Presumptions & Estoppel
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic (BSA § ← IEA §) | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Burden of proof — definition; on whom it lies; provisions (Ss 104–109 ← IEA Ss 101–106) | [16M] define burden of proof / on whom it lies / examine the provisions relating to burden of proof 2015(100),2016(100),2018-Dec(100),2019(100),2020(100),2021(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 4.2 | Estoppel — definition, scope & rationale; kinds (Ss 121–123 ← IEA Ss 115–117) | [16M] define estoppel / explain the various kinds of estoppel / relevancy of estoppel 2015(100),2016(100),2017(100),2018(100),2018-Dec(100),2019(100),2020(100),2021(100),2022(100); [SN] doctrine of estoppel 2020(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 4.3 | Estoppel distinguished from Res Judicata; waiver & presumption (S.121 ← IEA S.115) | [16M] define estoppel & distinguish from res judicata 2021(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.4 | Presumptions — rape & dowry-death cases; presumption as to legitimacy of child (Ss 116–118 ← IEA Ss 113A/113B/114A/112) | [16M] what are presumptions / presumption in rape & dowry-death cases 2018(100),2019(100); [SN] presumption as to legitimacy of child 2020(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.5 | Justification & doctrine of presumptions; judicial notice (Ss 110–119 ← IEA Ss 107–114) | (syllabus topic; tested chiefly via legitimacy/dowry problems P-IV-1, P-IV-2 and “facts not otherwise relevant”) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Problems whose core issue sits in Unit 4 (burden of proof / presumptions / estoppel).
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels; decoy in italics) | Key issue (BSA §) |
|---|---|---|
| P-IV-1 · 2017(100), 2019(100), 2021(100), 2025(80), 2026(80) | The question is whether ‘A’/‘S’ was the legitimate son of ‘B’/‘F’; the fact that A was always treated as a son by the members of the family. Relevant? On whom does the burden lie? Decoy: “treated as son” = legitimacy. | Presumption of legitimacy of a child born during marriage (S.116 ← IEA S.112); conduct (S.6) |
| P-IV-2 · 2018(100), 2019(100) | Dowry-death / cruelty context — on whom does the burden lie and what presumption applies (suicide note / death within 7 years of marriage)? Decoy: prosecution must prove everything. | Presumption as to dowry death & abetment of suicide (Ss 117–118 ← IEA Ss 113A/113B) |
| P-IV-3 · 2017(100), 2021(100), 2015(100) | In a stated set of facts the accused denies the charge; on whom does the burden of proof lie? Decoy: “he who denies need not prove”. | Burden of proof — general rule & shifting (Ss 104–106 ← IEA Ss 101–103) |
| P-IV-4 · 2017(100) | Whether ‘X’ and ‘Y’ were husband and wife (they lived/were treated as such); is such a fact relevant? Decoy: cohabitation as proof of marriage. | Presumption from cohabitation; burden (S.114-type presumption ← IEA S.114/S.50) |
| P-IV-5 · 2021(100), 2017(100) | A holds himself out / is estopped by a prior representation or as a tenant/acceptor; can he later deny it? Decoy: an inconsistent later stand. | Estoppel — tenancy / acceptor of bill (Ss 122–123 ← IEA Ss 116–117) |
📅 Unit 5 — Witnesses, Examination & Privilege
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic (BSA § ← IEA §) | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Examination-in-chief, cross-examination & re-examination (S.143 ← IEA S.138) | [16M] explain examination-in-chief, cross-examination & re-examination / importance of cross-examination & distinction 2018-Dec(100),2019(100),2020(100),2021(100),2022(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.2 | Privileged communications (Ss 128–139 ← IEA Ss 122–129) | [16M] what are privileged communications / protection given to communications / privileges of professional (advocate) & spousal communications 2016(100),2017(100),2019(100),2020(100),2021(100); BSA 2025-June ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.3 | Scope & extent of cross-examination; lawful questions in cross (Ss 143–149 ← IEA Ss 139–146) | [16M] scope of cross-examination & questions lawful in cross-examination 2015(100),2016(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 5.4 | Leading questions (S.146 ← IEA Ss 141–143) | [16M] what are leading questions / when can they be asked 2017(100),2019(100),2020(100); [SN] leading questions 2019(100) ⭐⭐ |
| 5.5 | Hostile witness; cross-examining one’s own witness (S.157 ← IEA S.154) | [SN] hostile witness 2016(100),2018-Dec(100),2019(100),2021(100); BSA 2025-Feb; [16M] when a party can cross-examine his own witness 2015(100),2020(100) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.6 | Competence to testify; who may testify (Ss 124–127 ← IEA Ss 118–121) | (syllabus topic; tested within examination essays; cover dumb/child/accomplice witnesses in notes) ⭐ |
| 5.7 | Approver’s / accomplice testimony; corroboration (S.138 / Ss 159–160 ← IEA S.133 / Ss 157–159) | (syllabus topic — accomplice & corroboration; cover with Ss 138/160 — links to Unit 2 co-accused; questions of corroboration) ⭐ |
| 5.8 | Improper admission / rejection of evidence (S.169 ← IEA S.167) | (syllabus topic; cover briefly — no new trial for improper admission/rejection if other evidence sufficient) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit 5 is tested overwhelmingly by essays & short notes, not fact-pattern problems. The recurring problem-style items concern cross-examining one’s own (hostile) witness and the propriety of questions in cross-examination.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels; decoy in italics) | Key issue (BSA §) |
|---|---|---|
| P-V-1 · 2015(100), 2020(100) | A party’s own witness turns against him; when may the party put cross-examination-type questions to his own witness? Decoy: “you cannot impeach your own witness”. | Hostile witness — leave to cross-examine one’s own witness (S.157 ← IEA S.154) |
| P-V-2 · 2016(100), 2017(100) | A witness is asked, in cross-examination, questions touching his credit / earlier inconsistent statements; which questions are lawful and when must he answer? Decoy: every question in cross is permissible. | Lawful questions in cross / compulsion to answer & protection (Ss 143–149, 150–156) |
← Back to Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Law of Evidence) Home
💎 Get Exam-Ready Solved Answer Banks
Looking for model answers to all these questions? Get the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Law of Evidence) Notes + Question Bank Bundle containing full 16-mark essay blueprints and solved IRAC problems for all previously-asked KSLU questions!