Important Judgements 3

Important Notice for Readers:

Please be aware that the questions provided in this post are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which, along with two other laws, has recently been replaced by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other legislative updates. As a result, some of the legal references and interpretations in these questions may no longer be applicable under the new laws.

For the most current information and to ensure your knowledge is up-to-date, we encourage you to review the latest legal texts and guidelines under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and related new laws. Thank you for your understanding and for staying informed on these important legal changes.

1.In which case did the Supreme Court rule that confession made before a police officer is inadmissible in a court of law under the NDPS Act?

a) Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India b) Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu c) Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab d) R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra

b) In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that confessions made to officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are inadmissible as evidence in court.

2. Which judgment ruled that married women have the right to stay in their matrimonial home under the Domestic Violence Act?

a) Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma b) Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India c) Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora d) Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti

d) In Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti (2019), a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that married women have a right to stay in their matrimonial home, affirming their right to residence under the Domestic Violence Act.

3. Which case dealt with the guidelines for speedy trials in criminal cases to prevent the accused from undue harassment?

a) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India b) Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar c) T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu d) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

b) In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court emphasized the need for speedy trials in criminal cases to prevent undue harassment of the accused, thereby upholding their right to a fair trial under Article 21.

4. Which judgment highlighted the right to legal aid and assistance as a fundamental right of an accused person under Article 21?

a) M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra b) Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra c) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani d) Khatri v. State of Bihar

a) In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978), a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to legal aid and assistance is a fundamental right of an accused person, integral to the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that life imprisonment means imprisonment for life and not just 14 years?

a) Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh b) Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka c) Sanghamitra Chakravarty v. State of Haryana d) Arun Gawli v. State of Maharashtra

b) In Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's natural life, unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority.

6. In which case did the Supreme Court declare that a police officer's failure to record an FIR before conducting a search invalidates the evidence obtained?

a) State of Uttar Pradesh v. K.K. Verma b) Sakshi v. Union of India c) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal d) Vineet Narain v. Union of India

d) In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that the non-recording of an FIR before conducting a search makes the evidence obtained through that search inadmissible.

7. Which case involved the Supreme Court addressing the rights of accused individuals to legal representation during police interrogations?

a) Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh b) P. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal c) Khatri v. State of Bihar d) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

c) In Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Supreme Court emphasized that accused individuals have the right to legal representation during police interrogations to ensure fair treatment.

8. In which case did the Supreme Court rule on the necessity of providing a copy of the FIR to the accused as a fundamental right?

a) Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar b) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani c) State of Gujarat v. Kishan Kaur d) A.K. Roy v. Union of India

a) In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), the Court ruled that providing a copy of the FIR to the accused is a fundamental right to ensure a fair trial.

9. Which judgment clarified that the right to a fair trial includes the right to a speedy trial?

a) A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik b) Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab c) M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra d) S. S. Sreelekha v. State of Kerala

a) In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik (1984), the Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial includes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

10.In which case did the Supreme Court address the issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal trials?

a) Anwar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer b) State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar c) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan d) N.K. Singh v. State of Bihar

a) In Anwar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of electronic evidence, emphasizing that such evidence must be presented in a manner consistent with the Information Technology Act and relevant legal standards.

If any answer found wrong, Please comment.

---

© 2025 UnIQ Coaching. All rights reserved.