Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

1. A prosecution witness identified the accused for the first time during trial. The accused were complete strangers to the witness, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during investigation. The trial court convicted the accused solely on the basis of this dock identification. Select the most appropriate option.A. Dock identification is by itself substantive and conclusive proof of identity, even without a TIP.B. A TIP is substantive evidence that can replace dock identification.C. Dock identification without a prior TIP, when the accused is a stranger, has little evidentiary value and courts must exercise extreme caution before relying on it.D. Failure to hold a TIP automatically nullifies the entire prosecution case regardless of other evidence.Answer: Option CCause Title: NAZIM & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1019Explanation: A TIP is not substantive evidence but a method to test the reliability of a witness who had no prior familiarity with the accused. In such cases, dock identification alone is weak and unsafe to base conviction upon.'Dock Identification Without Test Identification Parade Unreliable When Witness Had No Familiarity With Accused' : Supreme Court2. During investigation of a dowry death case, the Investigating Officer suspects that a witness had threatened another person on phone. The officer applies to the Judicial Magistrate for an order directing the witness to provide a voice sample for comparison with recorded conversations. The witness objects, arguing that:A Magistrate has no power under Cr.P.C. to direct collection of voice samples in the absence of explicit provision.Even if such power exists, compelling him to give a voice sample violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution.Since he is only a witness and not an accused, he cannot be forced to provide such a sample.Which of the following is the correct legal position?A. The Magistrate cannot order such collection because only the legislature can authorize voice sampling, and Cr.P.C. contained no such provision.B. The objection under Article 20(3) is valid since compelling a person to provide voice sample is testimonial compulsion and amounts to self-incrimination.C. The Magistrate can direct any “person,” including a witness, to give voice sample; such a sample is material/physical evidence, not testimonial evidence, hence Article 20(3) is not violated.D. The Magistrate can order only the accused to provide such sample; compelling a witness would be ultra vires and unconstitutional.Answer: Option CCause Title: Rahul Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1002Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate can direct the collection of voice samples not only from accused persons but also from witnesses. It ruled that such samples, whether voice, fingerprints, handwriting, or DNA, constitute material evidence rather than testimonial evidence, and therefore do not infringe the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).Magistrates Can Direct Witnesses To Give Voice Samples, Not Just Accused; Article 20(3) Not Violated : Supreme Court3. A complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the stage of filing, the Magistrate is considering whether to issue a summons to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).Which of the following options correctly reflects the legal position after the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar?A. The Magistrate must issue summons to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 BNSS, failing which the proceedings would be vitiated.B. Since the NI Act is a special enactment, there is no requirement for the Magistrate to issue summons at the pre-cognizance stage; summons are to be issued only post-cognizance.C. The Magistrate has discretion under Section 223 BNSS to issue summons at the pre-cognizance stage in cheque bounce cases, but such summons are optional and not mandatory.D. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act unless the accused is first heard at the pre-cognizance stage, as required by principles of natural justice.Answer: Option BCase : SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952Explanation: The Supreme Court held that in complaints under Section 138 NI Act, which is a special law, there is no requirement for pre-cognizance summons under Section 223 BNSS. Cognizance can be taken directly, and summons are to be issued after cognizance.No Need For Pre-Cognizance Summons To Accused In S.138 NI Act Case : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Speedy Trial Of Cheque Bounce Cases4. Chand Khan, a Muslim man, dies intestate and childless, leaving behind his widow Z, and his brother B. During his lifetime, Chand Khan had executed only an agreement to sell for a portion of his land in ...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags