Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Yash Mittal
19 Oct 2025 6:59 PM IST
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 C
Cause Title: NAZIM & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1019
Explanation: 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.
2. 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 C
Cause Title: Rahul Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1002
Explanation: 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).
3. 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 B
Case : SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952
Explanation: 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.
4. 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 favor of a third party, but no registered sale deed was executed. After his death, Z claims ¾ share in the estate, arguing that she is the primary heir under Mohammedan law and that the land covered under the agreement to sell should not be included in the estate. B contends that (i) the agreement to sell extinguished Chand Khan's ownership, and (ii) Z cannot claim more than her prescribed share under Mohammedan law.
Which of the following is the most legally correct outcome?
A. Z is entitled to ¾ share because she is the widow and sole direct heir, and the agreement to sell executed by Chand Khan extinguished his ownership in the land.
B. Z is entitled to ¼ share because, under Mohammedan law, a widow without children inherits only one-fourth of her husband's estate. The agreement to sell does not transfer ownership (as per Section 54 of TPA), so the land remains part of the estate.
C. Z is entitled to 1/8 share because the existence of the brother as an heir reduces her entitlement, while the land under the agreement to sell cannot form part of the estate.
D. Z is entitled to ½ share, since the brother is only a residuary heir, and the land under the agreement to sell must be excluded from the inheritance pool.
Answer: Option B
Cause Title: ZOHARBEE & ANR. Versus IMAM KHAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
Explanation: The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision that had denied a Muslim widow a 3/4th share in her late husband's estate. The Court said that the widow, a Muslim wife having no child, is entitled to receive only 1/4th share. Further, the Court clarified that a mere agreement to sell executed by the deceased's brother could not defeat the widow's inheritance rights, since such an agreement neither transfers nor extinguishes ownership.
5. A Trial Court took cognizance of an offence under Section 394 IPC only on the basis of affidavits filed by private witnesses, even though the police had not included Section 394 in the chargesheet. The Court did not summon the case diary or direct further investigation. The High Court upheld this order.
What is the correct legal position?
A. The Trial Court was right, since affidavits of witnesses are sufficient to take cognizance of additional offences.
B. The Trial Court was wrong, because cognizance cannot be taken solely on affidavits of witnesses; the Court must rely on investigation records or direct further investigation under CrPC.
C. The High Court correctly upheld the order, as courts have unlimited discretion to add offences at any stage.
D. The Trial Court should have immediately treated the affidavits as supplementary evidence and framed charges.
Answer: Option B
Cause Title: DEEPAK YADAV AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 966
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that a Trial Court cannot take cognizance of additional offences merely on affidavits of private witnesses. It must either examine the investigation record, summon the case diary under Section 172 CrPC, or direct further investigation. Mechanical reliance on affidavits violates fair trial principles.
6. A company, aggrieved by an ex parte money decree enhanced to ₹336 crores by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit, files an appeal before the Appellate Court and seeks stay of execution of the decree. The Division Bench grants the stay without requiring any deposit or security, citing glaring procedural and substantive infirmities in the judgment. The decree-holder challenges this decision, arguing that deposit of the decretal amount is mandatory for granting stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.
Considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, which of the following statements is correct?
A. The Appellate Court must impose a condition for deposit of the decretal amount for granting stay of execution of a money decree; failure to do so renders the stay invalid.
B. The Appellate Court has no discretion to grant stay of execution in a money decree; Order XLI Rule 5 mandates unconditional dismissal of the appeal if deposit is not made.
C. A stay of execution of a money decree cannot be granted unless the appellant deposits at least 50% of the decretal amount as security.
D. Deposit or furnishing security is directory, not mandatory, and the Appellate Court has discretion to grant stay of execution even without deposit, provided there is “sufficient cause” or an “exceptional case.”
Answer: Option D
Cause Title: LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR. VERSUS AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory for the Appellate Court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute for grant of stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
7. During a violent community clash, 10 individuals were charged under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 302 IPC. The Supreme Court observed that mere presence at the crime scene is not sufficient to hold a person liable under Section 149 IPC. Considering this principle, which of the following scenarios would most likely justify conviction under Section 149 IPC?
A. A person was present at the scene of a mob attack but did not participate in any violent act, carry weapons, or communicate with the mob.
B. A bystander watched a group attacking a shop but fled immediately without engaging or signaling agreement.
C. A person attended the gathering, carried a weapon, and actively attacked a victim in coordination with the mob, consistent with its known objective of causing harm.
D. A person arrived after the attack had ended and witnessed the aftermath but did not participate in any way.
Answer: Option C
Cause Title: ZAINUL VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 979
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that mere presence at the crime scene would not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly to book him under Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that the liability would shift to the bystander only when he shared the common object with the unlawful assembly.
8. A minor's natural guardian, without obtaining mandatory court permission, sells the minor's property. Years later, after attaining majority, the minor sells the same property to a third party. Which of the following statements correctly reflects the legal position?
A. The minor must always file a formal suit to repudiate the guardian's sale; mere conduct of selling the property to a third party is insufficient.
B. The guardian's sale is automatically valid, and the minor has no right to repudiate it upon attaining majority.
C. The minor can repudiate the guardian's sale either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as selling the property to a third party, provided it is done within the limitation period.
D. The subsequent purchaser from the minor automatically loses all rights if the guardian's sale is later repudiated, irrespective of limitation or possession.
Answer: Option C
Cause Title: K. S. SHIVAPPA VERSUS SMT. K. NEELAMMA, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 981
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that a minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate a voidable sale made by their guardian not only by filing a suit but also through unequivocal conduct, such as selling the property to a third party.
9. Three individuals were acquitted in connection with the alleged offence of murder after the prosecution relied on their statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where they disclosed the location of the weapons used in the crime. Which of the following principles correctly reflects the Court's reasoning?
A. Entire disclosure statements under Section 27 are admissible as proof of the accused committing the offence, including any confessional content regarding the crime.
B. Only the portion of the statement that leads to the discovery of an object (like a weapon) is admissible; any part implying the accused committed the offence with the object is inadmissible under Sections 25, 26, and 27.
C. Recovery of the weapons alone, even without forensic linking to the crime, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
D. Statements under Section 27 are completely inadmissible unless the accused voluntarily confesses the crime in its entirety before a Magistrate.
Answer: Option B
Cause Title: RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ETC., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 980
Explanation: The Supreme Court acquitted three individuals for the offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) after noting that the prosecution had relied on their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (“Act”), where they confessed that the weapon recovered was the weapon of crime.
10. A commercial contract contains an arbitration clause specifying that the Managing Director of one party shall act as the sole arbitrator. Subsequently, after a statutory amendment, the Managing Director is rendered ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The other party files an application under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. The arbitration clause becomes automatically void, and the parties cannot refer the dispute to arbitration.
B. The court cannot intervene because the arbitration clause specifies the procedure for appointing the arbitrator.
C. The arbitration agreement remains valid; the court has the power under Section 11(6) to appoint a neutral arbitrator to preserve the efficacy of arbitration.
D. The party seeking appointment must renegotiate the arbitration clause; otherwise, the dispute must be resolved in civil court.
Answer: Option C
Cause Title: OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED VERSUS M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 982
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that statutory disqualification of a named arbitrator under Section 12(5), even if specified in the arbitration clause, does not render the arbitration agreement void. The clause remains enforceable, and the court has jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to appoint a neutral arbitrator.