Question

Principle: Oral evidence must always be direct i.e. of the person who says he saw the event and hearsay evidence is no evidence.
Facts: X was told by Y (whom X trusts) that Z has murdered A.

• A. Statement of X is admissible
• B. Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A
• C. Statement of X is admissible because he trusts Y and Y never tells a lie
• D. Statement of X is admissible because he is a renowned social activist and has a huge reputation to fight for the truth

Hint:

In legal cases, only direct evidence from a witness who was present at the scene of the event is admissible. Hearsay evidence is generally excluded unless it falls under certain exceptions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The principle in the question emphasizes that oral evidence must always be direct. This means that the person providing the evidence must have witnessed the event themselves. In this case, X is repeating something told to him by Y. Since X did not witness the murder himself, but only heard it from Y, the statement is considered hearsay. Therefore, under this principle, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless it directly comes from the person who witnessed the event.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Option (A) is incorrect because the statement is not direct; X did not see the event. Option (C) is incorrect because the truthfulness of Y does not change the nature of the evidence—it remains hearsay. Option (D) is incorrect because being a renowned activist does not make hearsay evidence admissible.