Test of Evidence Act
evidence clat_pg intermediate experience_shareSo I appeared for AILET PG, and the Evidence Act paper was like, super challenging. They asked us: In a case where a person claims that they were threatened by the accused to destroy evidence, how would you treat this under the Evidence Act?
I was a bit stumped, but then I remembered that it's an admission against interest, which falls under Section 91. It's like, if a person says something that incriminates them, that can be used as evidence against them. Then they asked us about the burden of proof, specifically in a case where a defendant says that they didn't know about the presence of an illegal substance in a container. That was a tough one, but I remembered that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew about it.
Arey yaar, I don't think Test of Evidence Act is as straightforward as people make it out to be. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, but what about instances where the accused pleads 'alibi'? Suddenly, the test shifts and it's not just about proof, but also about proving the accused is lying. Let's not oversimplify this complex law, guys!