Maharashtra Judicial Service Civil Judge 2015 Paper-II
Maharashtra Judicial Service Civil Judge 2015 Paper-II Question Paper
Total marks – 200 Duration – 3 hours
1. Define ‘admission’, and explain :
‘Admissions are not conclusive proof of the fact admitted, but they may operate as estoppels
2. When are statements made by a person who is dead relevant and admissible in evidence?
3. Write short notes (any four):
(a) Expert Opinion
(b) Presumption as to 30-year-old document
(c) Hearsay Evidence
(e) Secondary Evidence
(f) Hostile Witness
4. What do you mean by F.I.R.? Explain in detail its significance and evidentiary value.
5. Write difference between (any four):
(a) Bailable and Non-bailable offence
(b) Cognisable and Non-cognisable offence
(c) Discharge and Acquittal
(d) Release of the accused on admonition and on probation of good behaviour
(e) Fine and Compensation
6. Define and explain the following concepts with illustration :
(a) Cruelty (U/S 498 A of I.P. Code)
(b) Dowry death
7. Write short notes (any four):
(a) Unlawful assembly
(b) Grievous hurt
(c) Good faith
(d) House trespass
8. Define and explain:
(with reference to Protection of Civil Rights Act)
[with reference to S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act]
9. Write an essay on any one subject:
(a) Is Uniform Civil Code really necessary?
(b) Increasing rate of atrocities against women
(c) Human Rights and their protection
10. Write judgement on the following facts
A lady by the name Gita was waiting for a bus near Pune Railway Station. A boy around 18 years came on a motorcycle, snatched Gita’s gold necklace of 40 gms and escaped before that lady could see his face. She lodged a report with the Police. On the next day Samir aged about 19 years was arrested by the Police in connection with a similar offence. He gave information to the Police that the day before he had snatched gold necklace of a woman and sold it to Sonare Jeweller. He showed that shop. Police seized gold ingot of 40 gms and sale receipt bearing signature of Samir.
Police did further investigation and filed charge-sheet against Samir.
During trial sufficient evidence is led to connect accused with the theft. Samir denied everything in his statement and alleged that the Police falsely implicated him. Alternatively he claimed benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.