Practice paper — BSA Chapter VII — Of The Burden Of Proof
50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit · 84 more on the site
samvidhan.co.in
1.What is meant by the phrase "the burden of proof lies on that person" as used in Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
- (A) That the person must prove the existence of the fact(s) they are bound to establish.
- (B) That the Court must independently prove the fact(s) before giving judgment.
- (C) That the opposite party must disprove the asserted fact(s).
- (D) That the asserted facts are presumed true unless the Court decides otherwise.
2.According to Section 104, who must prove facts when a person asks a Court to give judgment dependent on facts which he asserts?
- (A) The Court itself must prove those facts.
- (B) The person who asserts the facts must prove them.
- (C) The opposing party must prove the facts are false.
- (D) The State or public prosecutor must prove them.
3.Per Illustration (b) of Section 104: A seeks judgment that he is entitled to land in B's possession by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies. Who must prove the existence of those facts?
- (A) B must prove that A is not entitled to the land.
- (B) The Court must undertake independent fact-finding to prove the facts.
- (C) The State must intervene to establish title.
- (D) A must prove the existence of those facts he asserts.
4.According to Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on whom does the burden of proof lie?
- (A) On the person who first files the suit
- (B) On the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side
- (C) On the person who is defending
- (D) On the person currently in possession of disputed property
5.In Illustration (a) of Section 105, A sues B for land which B is in possession of and which A says was left to A by C's will. Why is the burden of proof placed on A?
- (A) Because a will is always invalid unless proved
- (B) Because possession automatically proves ownership
- (C) Because if no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession
- (D) Because B's father C made no transfer
6.Which statement best captures the application of Section 105 when a document's execution is admitted but its validity is attacked by allegation of fraud?
- (A) The burden is on the party asserting the fraud
- (B) The burden is always on the party who produced the document
- (C) The court must treat the document as conclusive proof without need for evidence
- (D) The burden is shared equally between parties
7.Under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on whom does the burden of proof as to any particular fact ordinarily lie?
- (A) On the person who wishes the Court to believe in the existence of that fact
- (B) On the person who denies or contradicts the fact
- (C) Always on the prosecution in criminal cases
- (D) On the Court or judge to establish the fact
8.Referring to the illustration in Section 106, who must prove that B admitted the theft to C?
- (A) B must prove the admission
- (B) A must prove the admission
- (C) C must prove the admission
- (D) No one; the Court should assume the admission
9.How does Section 106 treat the burden of proof when another law expressly states that the proof of a particular fact shall lie on a specified person?
- (A) The ordinary rule still applies; burden stays with the person who asserts the fact
- (B) The burden is to be shared equally between the parties
- (C) The Court may decide who should bear the burden in each case
- (D) The burden lies on the person specified by that other law
10.Who, under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, bears the burden of proving a fact necessary to enable a person to give evidence of another fact?
- (A) The person who wishes to give such evidence
- (B) The person against whom the evidence is given
- (C) The judge presiding over the trial
- (D) Any witness called on either side
11.According to the illustrations to Section 107, if A wishes to prove a dying declaration made by B, which fact must A prove first?
- (A) B's motive for making the statement
- (B) B's death
- (C) That the statement was made in the presence of A
- (D) The cause of B's death
12.Which statement best describes the scope of the burden imposed by Section 107?
- (A) It requires proving the substantive truth of the fact that the evidence seeks to establish.
- (B) It shifts the burden of proof of the main case to the person giving evidence.
- (C) It obliges the court to independently verify preliminary facts before admitting evidence.
- (D) It requires the person who wishes to give evidence to prove any preliminary fact necessary to make that evidence admissible.
13.Who bears the burden of proving the existence of circumstances that bring a case within any of the General Exceptions or any special exception or proviso?
- (A) The prosecution
- (B) The accused
- (C) The Court
- (D) Any witness
14.When an accused alleges facts bringing the case within an exception, what shall the Court presume?
- (A) The absence of such circumstances
- (B) The existence of such circumstances
- (C) The accused's innocence
- (D) That the prosecution has failed to prove the case
15.A is charged under section 117 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Who must prove the circumstances that would bring the case under sub-section (2) of section 122?
- (A) The prosecution
- (B) The Court (without evidence)
- (C) A jury
- (D) A (the accused)
16.What is the principal rule stated in Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
- (A) When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
- (B) The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution.
- (C) A person is presumed to have knowledge of facts unless proved otherwise.
- (D) The court must itself ascertain facts that are within a person's knowledge.
17.According to illustration (a) in Section 109, who must prove an intention that is different from that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest?
- (A) The prosecution
- (B) The court
- (C) The person who did the act
- (D) No one; intention need not be proved
18.Which of the following pairs of examples are the illustrations given in Section 109?
- (A) (a) A person did an act with an intention different from what circumstances suggest; (b) A is charged with travelling without a ticket and must prove he had one.
- (B) (a) Ownership of property disputed between parties; (b) Time of death of a person.
- (C) (a) A written confession; (b) Credibility of a witness.
- (D) (a) Fingerprint evidence; (b) Expert opinion on a disputed fact.
19.Under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, if it is shown that a man was alive within thirty years, who bears the burden of proving that he is dead?
- (A) The person who affirms that he is dead
- (B) The person who denies that he is dead
- (C) The court itself
- (D) The State
20.What is the time period specified in Section 110 within which the person must be shown to have been alive for the burden of proof to shift?
- (A) Seven years
- (B) Thirty years
- (C) Ten years
- (D) Fifty years
21.If the last proof that a person was alive dates from 35 years ago, does Section 110 place the burden of proving death on the person who affirms it?
- (A) Yes, in all cases
- (B) Yes, but only if relatives agree
- (C) Yes, but only in criminal proceedings
- (D) No, Section 110 applies where the person was shown alive within thirty years
22.According to Section 111, after how long of not being heard of does the burden of proving that a person is alive shift?
- (A) Seven years
- (B) Three years
- (C) Ten years
- (D) One year
23.To whom is the burden of proving that the person is alive shifted under Section 111 once the specified condition is met?
- (A) To the person who denies that he is alive
- (B) To the person who affirms that he is alive
- (C) To the State
- (D) To the next of kin
24.When does Section 111 apply?
- (A) When the question is whether a man is alive or dead
- (B) In every civil dispute concerning property
- (C) Only in criminal trials concerning disappearance
- (D) Only in matters of succession and wills
25.What single rule does Section 112 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, lay down?
- (A) If it is shown persons have been acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden of proving they do not so stand (or have ceased to so stand) is on the person who affirms that they do not.
- (B) The burden of proving the existence of partnership, tenancy or agency always lies on the person who asserts the relationship.
- (C) The burden of proof lies on the person who has acted in the relationship (e.g., the alleged partner, tenant or agent).
- (D) The court must independently disprove the alleged relationship once the parties claim it.
26.A pair of persons have been shown to have been acting as landlord and tenant. One of them now affirms that they have ceased to be tenant. Under Section 112, who bears the burden of proving cessation?
- (A) The landlord, because the landlord must prove termination of tenancy.
- (B) The court, which must investigate whether tenancy has ceased.
- (C) The person who affirms that they have ceased to stand as tenant (i.e., the one making the assertion).
- (D) The tenant automatically, because possession remains with the landlord.
27.If persons have been shown to have been acting as principal and agent, and one party now denies that the agency ever existed, who must prove the denial under Section 112?
- (A) The alleged principal, because principals bear the burden of denying agency.
- (B) The court, since agency is a factual question for judicial inquiry.
- (C) The alleged agent, because agents must prove their status.
- (D) The person who affirms the denial (i.e., the one asserting that there was no agency).
28.Under Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, when a person is shown to be in possession and the question is whether he is the owner, who bears the burden of proving that he is not the owner?
- (A) The person who affirms that he is not the owner
- (B) The person shown to be in possession
- (C) The person who claims ownership
- (D) The court or State
29.If the person shown in possession himself declares that he is not the owner of the thing, who bears the burden of proving non-ownership under Section 113?
- (A) The person asserting that the possessor is the owner
- (B) The court
- (C) The possessor who affirms he is not the owner
- (D) The alleged owner
30.A third party (neither the possessor nor the alleged owner) asserts that the possessor is not the owner. Under Section 113, who must prove that the possessor is not the owner?
- (A) The possessor shown in possession
- (B) The person asserting that the possessor is the owner
- (C) The court deciding the issue
- (D) The third party who affirms that he is not the owner
31.Under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties and one stands to the other in a position of active confidence, who bears the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction?
- (A) The party who stands to the other in a position of active confidence
- (B) The other party (not in a position of active confidence)
- (C) The court without any party bearing the burden
- (D) The State or prosecution
32.Illustration (a) of Section 114: The good faith of a sale by a client to an advocate is in question in a suit brought by the client. Who bears the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction?
- (A) The client who brought the suit
- (B) The court presiding over the suit
- (C) The advocate to whom the sale was made
- (D) The public prosecutor
33.Illustration (b) of Section 114: The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. Who bears the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction?
- (A) The son who brought the suit
- (B) Both son and father equally
- (C) The court without assigning burden to either party
- (D) The father to whom the sale was made
34.Under Section 115 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, when is it presumed that a person has committed the offence?
- (A) When the person is accused of an offence specified in sub-section (2) in a declared disturbed area or an area with over one month of extensive disturbance, and is shown to have been at a place in that area at a time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist members of armed forces or forces charged with maintenance of public order.
- (B) Whenever a person is merely present in any disturbed area at any time.
- (C) Whenever any firearm or explosive is found on a person in any area declared disturbed.
- (D) Whenever public order is affected anywhere in the country, regardless of duration, and the person was present in that general area.
35.Under Section 115(1)(b), if an area has experienced extensive disturbance of the public peace for exactly one month, does the presumption in Section 115 apply?
- (A) Yes — one month of disturbance is sufficient for the presumption.
- (B) No — Section 115(1)(b) requires disturbance for a period of more than one month.
- (C) Yes — the provision applies to any continuous disturbance lasting one month or more.
- (D) No — the provision applies only if the area is declared disturbed under an enactment, regardless of duration.
36.If firearms or explosives were used at a place to attack only civilians (and not members of armed forces or forces charged with maintenance of public order), does Section 115's presumption apply to a person shown to have been at that place?
- (A) Yes — any use of firearms or explosives at the place triggers the presumption.
- (B) Yes — the presumption applies so long as the area is declared disturbed, irrespective of the target.
- (C) No — the presumption applies only when firearms or explosives were used to attack or resist members of the armed forces or forces charged with maintenance of public order, as stated.
- (D) No — the presumption applies only if the accused is proved to have fired the weapon.
37.According to Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, when is a person conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of a man?
- (A) If born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and that man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried.
- (B) Only if born during the continuance of the marriage (not after dissolution).
- (C) If born within three hundred and sixty-five days after the dissolution of the marriage.
- (D) If born within two hundred and eighty days after dissolution even if the mother has remarried.
38.A child is born 300 days after the dissolution of the parents' marriage and the mother remained unmarried. Is the child's legitimacy conclusively proved under Section 116?
- (A) Yes, because the mother remained unmarried.
- (B) Yes, if the father admits paternity.
- (C) No, because the birth occurred after two hundred and eighty days from dissolution.
- (D) Yes, because any birth within a year of dissolution is covered.
39.Which of the following facts, if established, would displace the conclusive proof of legitimacy provided by Section 116?
- (A) Proof that the mother married another man after the dissolution.
- (B) A bare denial of paternity by the putative father without further proof.
- (C) Medical records indicating a different biological father without showing lack of access.
- (D) Showing that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten.
40.Under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, within what period from the date of marriage does the Court may presume that a woman’s suicide was abetted by her husband or his relative?
- (A) Within five years from the date of marriage
- (B) Within seven years from the date of marriage
- (C) Within ten years from the date of marriage
- (D) Within three years from the date of marriage
41.If a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and it is shown that her husband subjected her to cruelty, what must the Court do under Section 117?
- (A) The Court must always and conclusively presume abetment by the husband
- (B) The Court cannot presume abetment under any circumstances
- (C) The Court must presume abetment unless rebutted by the husband
- (D) The Court may presume abetment, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case
42.Which statement best describes the legal character of the presumption created by Section 117?
- (A) It creates a conclusive, irrebuttable presumption of abetment when the conditions are met
- (B) It creates a discretionary presumption that the Court may draw after considering all other circumstances
- (C) It automatically shifts the burden of proof onto the husband to prove he did not abet beyond reasonable doubt
- (D) It applies only in civil proceedings and not in criminal trials
43.For the purposes of Section 118, how is the term 'dowry death' to be understood?
- (A) As defined in the Indian Penal Code.
- (B) As having the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- (C) As any unnatural death in a household where dowry exists.
- (D) As defined by local customary law.
44.Section 118 will apply to create the presumption only when the cruelty or harassment was inflicted by which person?
- (A) Any person in the household where the woman resided.
- (B) Any person who had ever demanded dowry from the woman.
- (C) A person other than the one whose having caused the death is in question.
- (D) The same person against whom the question is whether he committed the dowry death.
45.Which of the following most accurately states the scope of Section 118 as to the victim of 'dowry death'?
- (A) It applies to dowry deaths of any person regardless of gender.
- (B) It applies only where the accused was the father-in-law of the deceased.
- (C) It creates an irrebuttable presumption that cannot be challenged.
- (D) It applies to the dowry death of a woman, as specified in the section.
46.Which illustration in Section 119 expressly states the presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it?
- (A) Illustration (a)
- (B) Illustration (d)
- (C) Illustration (g)
- (D) Illustration (i)
47.Section 119(2)(viii) gives an example relating to Illustration (g) (withheld evidence). What does that example show about applying the presumption of unfavourability when a party refuses to produce a document?
- (A) The presumption applies automatically regardless of motive for withholding
- (B) The presumption applies only in criminal cases, not civil cases
- (C) The presumption must be treated as conclusive evidence against the party who withholds the document
- (D) The Court must consider motives (e.g., saving family feelings) and may refrain from applying the presumption
48.Illustration (i) presumes that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. How does Section 119(2)(x) qualify that presumption?
- (A) It states the presumption is absolute and cannot be questioned
- (B) It replaces the presumption with one that the obligor forged the document
- (C) It states the Court must consider circumstances suggesting the document may have been stolen, which can rebut the presumption
- (D) It limits the presumption to obligations arising from negotiable instruments only
49.In section 120, the term "sexual intercourse" is defined to mean:
- (A) Only penile–vaginal intercourse
- (B) Any of the acts mentioned in section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- (C) Any sexual act under common law
- (D) Any act causing bodily harm during a sexual encounter
50.If sexual intercourse by the accused is proved but the woman does not give evidence before the Court, can the court invoke the presumption in section 120?
- (A) Yes, the presumption applies whenever intercourse is proved
- (B) Yes, but only if corroborative medical evidence exists
- (C) No, unless the accused also admits lack of consent
- (D) No, the presumption requires the woman to state in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent
Answer key
Explanations
- 1. (A) Section 104 states: "when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." Thus the burden of proof means the obligation on that person to prove the existence of the fact(s) they are asserting.
- 2. (B) The provision begins: "Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist." Therefore the asserting person must prove those facts.
- 3. (D) Illustration (b) states: "A must prove the existence of those facts." When A asserts facts on which his claim to land depends and B denies them, A bears the burden to prove those facts.
- 4. (B) Section 105 states that the burden of proof "lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side." This is the controlling rule for determining burden under the provision.
- 5. (C) The illustration states that "If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore, the burden of proof is on A." Thus the burden is on A because B would succeed if no evidence were produced.
- 6. (A) Illustration (b) shows that when execution is admitted but fraud is alleged, the party asserting fraud bears the burden: "Therefore, the burden of proof is on B." This follows the rule that burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given.
- 7. (A) Section 106 states that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence. The provision sets this as the ordinary rule unless another law provides otherwise.
- 8. (B) The illustration expressly says A prosecutes B and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C; therefore A must prove the admission. This follows the rule that the burden lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe the fact.
- 9. (D) Section 106 contains the qualification 'unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.' Therefore if another law specifies who must prove the fact, that specification governs.
- 10. (A) Section 107 states that the burden of proving any fact necessary to enable a person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Thus the onus lies with the party who seeks to produce that evidence.
- 11. (B) Illustration (a) to Section 107 expressly states that if A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B, A must prove B's death. The provision places the burden of that preliminary fact on the person seeking to rely on the dying declaration.
- 12. (D) Section 107 confines the burden to proving any fact necessary to enable a person to give evidence of another fact — i.e., preliminary facts needed for admissibility. It does not state that the person must prove the substantive truth of the primary fact itself.
- 13. (B) The provision states that when a person is accused of any offence, 'the burden of proving the existence of circumstances ... is upon him' (i.e., the accused). The Court is directed to presume the absence of such circumstances.
- 14. (A) The provision expressly provides that 'the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances' when an accused claims the case comes within an exception. Thus the default presumption is absence, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise.
- 15. (D) Illustration (c) specifies that where A is charged under section 117, 'the burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under sub-section (2) of section 122 lies on A.' Thus the accused must prove those circumstances.
- 16. (A) Section 109 begins: 'When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.' This places the burden of proof on the person who particularly knows the fact.
- 17. (C) Illustration (a) states that when a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. Thus the actor must prove the differing intention.
- 18. (A) Section 109 provides two illustrations: (a) burden on a person to prove an intention different from that suggested by the character and circumstances of the act; and (b) where A is charged with travelling without a ticket, the burden on him to prove he had one. Option (a) matches these illustrations.
- 19. (A) The provision states that when it is shown a man was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. Therefore the affirming party (who asserts death) bears the burden.
- 20. (B) Section 110 expressly refers to the situation where it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years. The specified period in the provision is thirty years.
- 21. (D) Section 110 applies when it is shown the person was alive within thirty years. If the last showing was 35 years ago (beyond thirty years), that condition is not met, so Section 110 does not impose that burden.
- 22. (A) Section 111 states that if it is proved that a person "has not been heard of for seven years" by those who would naturally have heard of him, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted. The provision expressly uses the seven‑year period.
- 23. (B) Section 111 provides that when the condition is satisfied "the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it." Thus the affirming party must prove life.
- 24. (A) Section 111 begins: "When the question is whether a man is alive or dead..." indicating the provision applies specifically to questions about whether a person is alive or dead, not universally to all civil or criminal matters.
- 25. (A) Section 112 states that once it is shown persons have been acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden of proving that they do not, or have ceased to, stand in those relationships is on the person who affirms it. Thus the burden rests on the one who affirms the negative or cessation.
- 26. (C) Section 112 places the burden 'on the person who affirms' that the parties do not, or have ceased to, stand to each other in the relationship. If one asserts cessation of tenancy, that asserting person must prove it. The provision does not shift the burden to the court or automatically to landlord.
- 27. (D) The section clearly states that where it has been shown they have acted as principal and agent, the burden of proving that they do not stand as such is on 'the person who affirms it.' Thus the party asserting there was no agency must prove that assertion.
- 28. (A) The provision states that when the question is whether a person in possession is the owner, "the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner." Thus the burden lies on the one who denies ownership, not on the possessor or the court.
- 29. (C) The provision says the burden of proving non-ownership is on "the person who affirms that he is not the owner." If the possessor himself denies ownership, he is the one who affirms non-ownership and so must prove it.
- 30. (D) Section 113 places the burden of proving non-ownership "on the person who affirms that he is not the owner." If a third party affirms that the possessor is not the owner, that third party bears the burden of proof.
- 31. (A) Section 114 states that when good faith of a transaction is in question and one party stands in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving good faith is on the party in that position of active confidence. Therefore the party in active confidence must prove good faith.
- 32. (C) Illustration (a) explicitly states that when a sale by a client to an advocate is questioned in a suit by the client, the burden of proving good faith is on the advocate. This applies because the advocate stands in a position of active confidence.
- 33. (D) Illustration (b) states that in a suit by the son challenging a sale by the son to his father, the burden of proving good faith rests on the father. The father is the party standing in a position of active confidence, so the burden is on him.
- 34. (A) Section 115(1) requires (a) the person to be accused of an offence specified in sub-section (2) in either a declared disturbed area or an area with more than one month of extensive disturbance, and (b) that the person was at a place where firearms/explosives were used to attack or resist members of armed forces/forces charged with maintenance of public order; then the presumption arises.
- 35. (B) Section 115(1)(b) specifically requires that there has been, over a period of more than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace. Exactly one month therefore does not meet the 'more than one month' criterion.
- 36. (C) Section 115(1) conditions the presumption on firearms or explosives being used at or from that place to attack or resist members of any armed forces or forces charged with maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their duties. Use solely against civilians does not fulfil that condition.
- 37. (A) The provision states the fact that a person was born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution with the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof of legitimacy. The exact period given is two hundred and eighty days and the condition that the mother remain unmarried is specified.
- 38. (C) Section 116 limits the post-dissolution period to two hundred and eighty days. A birth at 300 days falls outside that period, so the provision's conclusive proof does not apply merely because the mother remained unmarried.
- 39. (D) The section provides an explicit exception: the conclusive proof is subject to being displaced if it can be shown that the parties had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten. That specific showing is the stated rebuttal.
- 40. (B) The provision states the presumption arises when it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Therefore the specified period is seven years.
- 41. (D) The provision uses the phrase 'the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case,' indicating the Court has discretion to draw the presumption and must consider other circumstances rather than being compelled to do so in every case.
- 42. (B) Section 117 states that 'the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case,' which characterizes the presumption as discretionary and subject to consideration of other circumstances, not as an irrebuttable or automatic shift of burden.
- 43. (B) The Explanation to Section 118 explicitly states that 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore the statutory cross-reference in option B is correct.
- 44. (D) The section speaks of the woman having been subjected 'by such person' (i.e., the person who is the subject of the question whether he committed the dowry death). Thus the presumption applies only when the cruelty or harassment was by that same person, as stated in option D.
- 45. (D) Section 118 expressly begins with 'When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman', specifying that the provision concerns dowry death of a woman. Therefore option D accurately states the statutory scope.
- 46. (C) Illustration (g) in Section 119(1) specifically provides the presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The other illustrations address different presumptions.
- 47. (D) Section 119(2)(viii) illustrates that if a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a small contract but might injure his family's feelings, the Court shall have regard to such facts when considering Illustration (g). Thus motives may weaken or exclude the presumption.
- 48. (C) Illustration (i) presumes discharge when the obligation-creating document is with the obligor, but Section 119(2)(x) gives the example that if the bond is in the obligor's possession yet circumstances suggest he may have stolen it, the Court shall regard that fact. Thus such circumstances can rebut the presumption.
- 49. (B) The Explanation to section 120 states: "In this section, 'sexual intercourse' shall mean any of the acts mentioned in section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023." Thus it refers to the acts enumerated in section 63.
- 50. (D) The section specifies the presumption arises where intercourse is proved and "such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent." If she does not give that evidence, the statutory presumption is not triggered.