Site navigation

In State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram (Supreme Court, 19 March 1999), what was the effect of obtaining the…

The Court rejected the objection based merely on the signatures: "The signatures did not by themselves vitiate the recovery evidence". CrPC section 162(2) preserved Evidence…

Choose your answer

In State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram (Supreme Court, 19 March 1999), what was the effect of obtaining the accused’s signatures on seizure memoranda concerning recoveries under Evidence Act section 27?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

The Court rejected the objection based merely on the signatures: "The signatures did not by themselves vitiate the recovery evidence". CrPC section 162(2) preserved Evidence Act section 27 (now section 181 of the BNSS and the proviso to section 23(2) of the BSA respectively); a signature was not obligatory and did not itself establish guilt.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic