Question Paper | Uttarakhand PCS(J) Pre 2009 | Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Preliminary) Examination- 2009

Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Preliminary) Examination- 2009

Question Number: 161-170

161. Which one of the following is not correctly matched ?

(A) Child witness : Section 118

(B) Dumb witness : Section 120

(C) Hostile witness : Section 154

(D) Expert witness : Section 45

162. The illustration that, "A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said, ‘B and I murdered C’," relates—

(A) Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act

(B) Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act

(C) Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act

(D) Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

163. Identification parade is relevant under—

(A) Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act

(B) Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act

(C) Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act

(D) Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act

164. Which of the following Sections was amended by the Indian Technology Act, 2000 ?

(A) Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act

(B) Section 17 of the Indian Evidence act

(C) Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act

(D) Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act

165. Section 113–A of the Indian Evidence Act was added in—

(A) Year 1982

(B) Year 1983

(C) Year 1988

(D) Year 1980

166. The Indian Evidence Act deals with—

(A) ‘presumptio juris’ only

(B) ‘presumptio huminis’ only

(C) Both (A) and (B)

(D) None of the above

167. Indian Evidence Act deals privilege—

(A) As a right only

(B) As a duty only

(C) As a right and duty both

(D) Neither as a right nor as a duty

168. Facts supporting or rebutting the opinion of the experts are relevant under—

(A) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

(B) Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act

(C) Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act

(D) Section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act

169. Which one of the following cases does not relate to ‘dying declaration’ ?

(A) Queen Emperess V s . Abdullah

(B) Pakala Narayan Swamy Vs. King Emperor

(C) Zafar Vs. State of U.P.

(D) Ratangond Vs. State of Bihar

170. Case of Pakala Narayan Swami Vs. King Emperor is related with—

(A) Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act

(B) Section 21(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

(C) Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

(D) Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act

<== Previous Next ==>