(1) The maxim Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence.

(3) Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of an expert cannot be on the question of Indian law.

(1) A lunatic who is not prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him is a competent witness.

(3) His evidence is relevant u/s 114 and 133 of the Evidence Act.

(3) Res Ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself.

(4) Under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence of judgment, order or decree can be challenged on the ground of fraud or collusion or incompetence of the court.

(2) An accomplice is not a competent witness in offences punishable with hadd.

(4) Hostile witness is the one who is not desirous to tell the truth and gives testimony against the party who called him as a witness in his favour.

(4) Nothing is an exception to hearsay evidence.

A dying declaration made by a victim, accusing a person of having been responsible for his/her death, cannot form the basis of conviction.  

(3) Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act provides presumption for death, i.e. 'Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.'

(2) A dumb witness who gives his evidence by writing in open court is termed oral evidence.

(1) The case of Budhsen vs. State of U.P. AIR 1970, S.C. 1321 is related to identification parades.

Test Identification Parade can be taken by any person whom the court authorises by police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector and by the court itself.

All these evidences are relevant and admissible under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.