Question

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:

• A. Upon that person who conceive such intention.
• B. Not upon that person who conceive such intention.
• C. Upon prosecution irrespective to the fact who conceived such intention.
• D. Not clear under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A. Presumption of guilty
• B. Presumption of innocence
• C. Mix Presumption
• D. No presumption
• A. Partially established
• B. Fully established
• C. Reasonably established
• D. Initially established
• A. Does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
• B. Does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
• C. Must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
• D. Both (A) and (C).
• A. Common
• B. Reasonable
• C. Dominant
• D. Minimum
• A. Section 104
• B. Section 105
• C. Section 106
• D. Section 107

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Principle under the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon them.
Step 2: Application to the given scenario.
If a person’s act appears to have a certain intention based on its nature and surrounding circumstances, but they claim it had a different intention, that alternative intention is a fact especially within their knowledge. Therefore, they must prove it.
Step 3: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (B) is contrary to Section 106.
- (C) incorrectly shifts burden entirely to prosecution.
- (D) is incorrect as the Act has clear provisions.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Fundamental principle in criminal law.
Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and recognised in Indian case law.
Step 2: Conflict resolution.
When presumption of innocence clashes with any other presumption, courts uphold the former, as it protects the accused until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Step 3: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (A) is against criminal law principles.
- (C) is vague and not legally recognised.
- (D) is incorrect as presumption of innocence always exists unless rebutted.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Rule for circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) laid down that circumstances must be fully established and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Step 2: Avoiding partial or incomplete proof.
Partial, reasonable, or initial establishment leaves room for doubt, which cannot sustain a conviction in circumstantial cases.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, only full establishment of circumstances that exclude any hypothesis of innocence can lead to conviction. \[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Principle from Supreme Court precedents.
In cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra laid down that the chain of circumstances must be:
1. Fully established;
2. Consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3. Of a conclusive nature;
4. Such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. Such that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
Step 2: Application to options.
- (A) correctly states that no reasonable ground for innocence should remain.
- (C) correctly states that the act must be shown to be committed by the accused within all human probability.
- (B) is worded incorrectly — it uses “inconsistent with innocence” which changes the meaning.
Thus, both (A) and (C) are correct together. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Presumption of innocence in serious offences.
In murder trials based solely on circumstantial evidence, courts place heavy emphasis on the presumption of innocence to ensure no wrongful conviction occurs.
Step 2: Why “dominant” role?
Because circumstantial evidence is indirect, the chain of circumstances must be unbreakable, and any reasonable doubt should tilt in favour of the accused. This makes presumption of innocence a dominant factor in judicial reasoning.
Step 3: Eliminating wrong options.
- (A) “Common” is vague.
- (B) “Reasonable” is too weak in legal emphasis.
- (D) “Minimum” is opposite to legal principle in such cases.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]

Answer 6

Step 1: Section 105 provision.
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act states: “When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code… is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
Step 2: Application.
If an accused claims benefit of a general exception (e.g., insanity, self-defence), they must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Step 3: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (A) Section 104 relates to burden of proving fact to enable evidence to be given.
- (C) Section 106 deals with facts especially within knowledge.
- (D) Section 107 deals with presumption as to continuance of life.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]