Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination

1. A woman is found dead near a canal. CCTV footage from nearby roads captures a person with a distinctive gait walking towards the location around the relevant time. After arrest, the police direct the accused to walk in a particular manner at the crime scene so that forensic experts can compare his gait with the CCTV footage. During the exercise, the accused is not asked to narrate the incident or explain how the crime was committed. The forensic report later states that the gait pattern substantially matches the person seen in the CCTV footage.Before trial, the accused challenges the admissibility of the re-enactment and gait analysis on the ground that compelling him to participate violated his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 25–26 of the Evidence Act.Which of the following is the most legally correct position?(A) Any participation of the accused in the crime scene re-enactment automatically amounts to testimonial compulsion and is constitutionally barred.(B) The re-enactment is admissible because physical attributes such as gait are not personal testimony, provided the accused is not compelled to disclose incriminating facts from personal knowledge.(C) The gait analysis is inadmissible because expert opinion based on police-directed conduct is always hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.(D) Crime scene re-enactment is admissible only if the accused voluntarily confesses involvement in the crime during the demonstration.Correct Answer: (B)Cause Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v PONNUSAMY AND ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 519Explanation: The constitutional protection under Article 20(3) applies only when the accused is compelled to provide testimonial evidence based on personal knowledge of the crime. A mere physical demonstration—such as walking, standing, or exhibiting bodily characteristics for scientific comparison—does not by itself amount to testimonial compulsion.Crime Scene Re-Enactment Won't Violate Right Against Self Incrimination In All Situations: Supreme Court2. A prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was filed before a Special Court on 25 June 2024. The new criminal procedure code i.e., the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 and introduced a proviso mandating that in complaint cases, the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. The Special Court took cognizance on 3 July 2024 without hearing the accused. The accused challenged the cognizance order.Which of the following is the most legally correct position?A. The old procedural code will continue to apply because filing of the complaint before commencement of the new code automatically excludes application of later procedural safeguards.B. The hearing requirement is merely directory in nature, and unless the accused proves prejudice, the cognizance order cannot be set aside.C. Since cognizance was taken after the commencement of the new code, the accused is entitled to the statutory right of hearing before cognizance, and non-compliance renders the cognizance order void ab initio even without proof of prejudice.D. The hearing requirement cannot apply to proceedings under special statutes because special courts are entirely exempt from general criminal procedure provisions.Correct Answer: (C)Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 522Explanation: The first proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS, granting an accused an opportunity of hearing before cognizance in a complaint case is a substantive safeguard linked to the right to fair trial under Article 21. Its mandatory nature is reflected through the use of the word “shall.” Therefore, if cognizance is taken after the new procedural code came into force, the accused becomes entitled to that safeguard unless proceedings protected by the savings clause had already commenced in the legal sense.BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court3. A Hindu male dies intestate in 1998 leaving behind ancestral property, his widow, two sons, and two daughters. In 2002, the sons execute a registered partition deed among themselves and their mother, excluding the daughters from the arrangement. In 2008, the daughters file a suit seeking partition and claim equal shares in the deceased father's interest in the property as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The defendants seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that since the partition took place before 20 December 2004, Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act bars the suit.Which of the following is the most legally correct position?A. The suit is barred because Section 6(5) protects all pre-2004 partitions and extinguishes any later claim by daughters, irrespective of intestate succession rights.B. The plaint must be rejected because once a registered partition deed exists, the...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers