Question

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 Y (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 Y and Y 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

Hint:

In legal cases, only direct evidence from a witness who was present at the scene of the event is admissible. Hearsay evidence is generally excluded unless it falls under certain exceptions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The principle in the question emphasizes that oral evidence must always be direct. This means that the person providing the evidence must have witnessed the event themselves. In this case, X is repeating something told to him by Y. Since X did not witness the murder himself, but only heard it from Y, the statement is considered hearsay. Therefore, under this principle, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless it directly comes from the person who witnessed the event.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Option (A) is incorrect because the statement is not direct; X did not see the event. Option (C) is incorrect because the truthfulness of Y does not change the nature of the evidence—it remains hearsay. Option (D) is incorrect because being a renowned activist does not make hearsay evidence admissible.

Answer 2

The principle here restricts oral evidence to what a witness has personally seen or perceived, and treats a secondhand account, hearsay, as no evidence at all. X did not witness the murder; he only heard about it from Y. Let's weigh each option against this rule.

1. Statement of X is admissible: This would allow X's account into evidence even though he never saw the murder himself. That directly conflicts with the rule that oral evidence must be direct, so this option fails.
2. Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A: X's knowledge comes entirely from Y's report, not from his own perception of the event. Since the rule demands direct, first-hand evidence and excludes hearsay, X's statement cannot be used to prove that Z murdered A. This matches the principle exactly.
3. Statement of X is admissible because he trusts Y and Y never tells a lie: How trustworthy X finds Y has nothing to do with whether X actually witnessed the event. The rule turns on direct perception, not on the reporter's credibility, so trust in Y cannot rescue the statement from being hearsay.
4. Statement of X is admissible because he is a renowned social activist: X's personal reputation or social standing does not change the source of his knowledge. He still only heard about the murder from someone else, so his statement remains hearsay regardless of how well regarded he is.

Only the second option correctly applies the rule: since X did not personally see Z murder A, his account is hearsay and cannot count as oral evidence of that fact.

Therefore, the correct answer is Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A.

Answer 3

Under the stated principle, oral evidence is only good evidence when it comes from someone who directly perceived the fact themselves; anything relayed from another person is hearsay and carries no evidentiary value. A simple two-part test captures this, first ask whether the witness perceived the event with his own senses, and second, if not, ask whether any special quality of the source, trust, reputation or standing, could substitute for that direct perception. Under the rule as stated, nothing substitutes for direct perception. Let's apply this test to each option.

1. Statement of X is admissible: X fails the first part of the test, he never perceived Z murdering A himself, he only heard about it from Y. Since nothing can substitute for direct perception under the rule, this option is wrong to call the statement admissible.
2. Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A: This applies the first part of the test correctly, X did not perceive the murder himself, so his account fails the direct-perception requirement and is excluded as hearsay, exactly as the rule demands.
3. Statement of X is admissible because he trusts Y and Y never tells a lie: This tries to use Y's trustworthiness as a substitute for X's own direct perception, which is exactly the second part of the test the rule rejects. However reliable Y might be, that reliability cannot convert X's secondhand account into direct evidence.
4. Statement of X is admissible because he is a renowned social activist and has a huge reputation to fight for the truth: This substitutes X's own reputation for direct perception of the event, but the test asks only whether X personally witnessed the murder, not how respected X is. X's standing does not satisfy the first part of the test either.

X never perceived the murder himself, and the rule allows nothing, neither the source's trustworthiness nor the witness's own reputation, to stand in for that direct perception.

Therefore, the correct answer is Statement of X is not admissible because he has not seen Z murdering A.