Under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks is likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. 

Evidence is of two types: oral evidence and documentary evidence.

Dying declaration is based on the maxim 'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' which means 'a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth'.

Admission is defined in the Indian Evidence Act, whereas confession is not defined.

Indian Evidence Act came into force on 1^st September, 1872.

Communications during marriage - Section 122 Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him - Section 26 Dumb witness - Section 119 Professional communications - Section 126  

Tape recorded conversation is relevant as an evidence on satisfying the voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be identified by the maker of the record or by other who knows it.

Bodh Raj vs. State of J & K - Last seen theory. Ram Narain vs State of UP - Expert Opinion. State of UP vs Raj Narain - Privileged Communication. Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana - Accomplice Evidence

Section 4 of the Evidence Act defines: 'May presume' — Whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disapproved or may call for proof of it. 'Shall presume' —Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disapproved. 'Conclusive proof'—When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall on proof of the one fact regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disapproving it.

The leading English case of R. V. Blake and Tye in evidence relates to conspiracy under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.

Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and Others, Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, R. S. Madanappa vs.Chandramma are the leading cases related with the issues of estoppel.

Dying declaration has been dealt in the Indian Evidence Act under Section 32(1). When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question, such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not at the time when they were made under the exception of death and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.  

Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 

The expression 'res gestae' is a Latin word; literally means the thing done, a transaction or essential circumstance surrounding the subject. 

The leading judgement on dying declaration came on Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay.

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise.

Whether evidence can be recorded by videoconferencing was decided in the leading case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prafull B. Desai.

All are correct definitions provided under the Indian Evidence Act.

Under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose showing that any such persons was a party to it.

Karta can't alienate Joint Family Property for donating in national interest.

In Joint Family, existence of property is not essential.

Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution refers to freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

All are correct.

The status of Hindu Joint Family can't be lost because of adoption of non hindu child.