question_answer

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (here-in-after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e. [a], [b], [c] or [d] is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Principle Oral evidence must always be direct i.e. of the person who says he saw the event and hearsay evidence is no evidence.

Facts 'X' was told by T (whom X' trusts) that 'Z' has murdered 'A'

A) Statement of X' is admissible

B) Statement of X' is not admissible because he has not seen 'Z' murdering 'A'

C) Statement of X' is admissible because he trusts T and T never tells a lie

D) Statement of X' is admissible because he is a renowned social activist and has a huge reputation to fight for the truth