Question

A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. – under which section of the India Evidence Act.

• A. Section 12
• B. Section 6
• C. Section 5
• D. Section 9

Hint:

Section 6 allows the inclusion of all facts that form part of the same transaction, even if a person is not present for every event.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of facts that are part of the same transaction. If A was part of an armed insurrection, even if he was not present at every event, the entire transaction of waging war is relevant.
Step 2: Explanation of the options.
- (a) Section 12: Deals with the relevancy of the judgments in cases regarding marriage, which is not applicable here.
- (b) Section 6: This is the correct section, as it deals with facts forming part of the same transaction, which is relevant in this case.
- (c) Section 5: Deals with the relevancy of facts but not as part of the same transaction.
- (d) Section 9: Deals with the relevancy of facts related to the motive, preparation, and conduct of a crime, but does not cover the entire transaction.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the correct answer is (b) Section 6.