Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination

1. A is prosecuted for murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. During police custody, A gives a statement leading to the recovery of a dead body from a forest area. The prosecution relies mainly on this disclosure statement and the alleged recovery. There is no reliable “last seen” evidence, motive is weak, medical evidence does not clearly support the prosecution timeline, and other links in the chain of circumstances are missing.In such a case, which of the following is the most legally correct position?A. Conviction can be based solely on the disclosure statement and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.B. Disclosure statement is substantive evidence and by itself sufficient to prove guilt.C. Disclosure statement and recovery can only be used as a supporting circumstance and conviction is possible only if the entire chain of circumstances is complete.D. Once recovery is proved, other circumstances become irrelevant.Correct Answer: CCause Title: TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (and connected matter), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 59Explanation: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only that portion of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible. A disclosure statement is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Recovery pursuant to a disclosure can at best be one link in that chain, not the entire chain itself.S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete : Supreme Court2. A enters into an agreement to sell his land to B. Before any suit is filed, A sells the same land to C for consideration. Later, B files a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, C further transfers the property to D. D claims protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and resists execution of the decree passed in favour of B.Which of the following is the correct legal position?(a) D is protected under Section 19(b) because he purchased the property for value and without notice of the original contract.(b) D is protected because every subsequent purchaser gets an independent right irrespective of pendency of litigation.(c) D can resist execution unless actual notice of the pending suit is proved against him.(d) D is not protected, as once the suit is filed, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies and overrides Section 19(b).Correct Answer: DCause Title: ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN & ANR. VERSUS HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44Explanation: Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act operates only before the institution of a suit and protects a bona fide purchaser who buys for value, in good faith, and without notice of the prior contract. Once a suit for specific performance is instituted, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens) comes into operation. Any transfer made during pendency of the suit becomes subject to the result of litigation, and the defence of bona fide purchase under Section 19(b) is no longer available. Hence, D cannot resist execution of the decree.Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act Cannot Override Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Once Suit Is Filed: Supreme Court3. A borrows money from B in one transaction and issues three post-dated cheques towards repayment. All three cheques are dishonoured on different dates. After serving separate statutory notices and on failure of payment, B files three separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A argues that only one complaint is maintainable since all cheques arose from the same transaction and liability.Which of the following is the correct legal position?A. Only one complaint is maintainable because there is a single underlying transaction.B. Each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action, and separate complaints are maintainable.C. Multiple complaints are not maintainable unless the cheques were issued for different transactions.D. Complaints can be merged by the court into one proceeding as a matter of law.Correct Answer: BCase : Sumit Bansal v M/s MGI Developers and Promoters, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 34Explanation: Under Section 138 NI Act, each dishonour of a cheque, followed by compliance with statutory requirements (presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment), creates a separate and distinct cause of action. The fact that multiple cheques arise from the same transaction does not merge them into a single cause of action. Therefore, multiple complaints are legally maintainable.S.138 NI Act | Multiple Complaints Can Be Filed Over Dishonour Of Several Cheques From Same Transaction : Supreme Court4. A shareholder alleges that certain directors of a company...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination

Yash Mittal

Tags