Option (1) is incorrect: A confession, whether it is judicial or extrajudicial, made under a threat is not admissible in evidence. Option (2) is correct: If it is made with fear of assault or is of involuntarily nature, then it is inadmissible. Option (3) is incorrect: A confession made involuntarily can never be used as a supporting evidence. Option (4) is incorrect: Partly is of no criteria.

Option (1) is incorrect: The court cannot dictate the question to the advocate under any provision of law. Option (2) is incorrect: The court is under no authority to hear the question. Option (3) is correct: If the court is of the opinion that any such question was asked by any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney without reasonable grounds, then the court may report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney is subject in the exercise of his profession. Option (4) is incorrect: The court is under no authority to give permission and to hear the question.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels. Option (2) is correct: Under Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels. Option (3) is incorrect: Admissions are not always relevant.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing without such writing being shown to him or being proved. Option (2) is correct: Section 143 of the Indian Evidence Act states that leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Option (3) is incorrect: A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. Option (4) is incorrect: A person summoned to produce a document cannot be cross-examined even with the permission of the court unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (1) is incorrect: Confession made to a police officer, whether made voluntarily, is not deemed as made voluntarily. Hence, it is inadmissible. Option (2) is correct: Confession made before a magistrate having competent jurisdiction is admissible in evidence. Option (3) is incorrect: Confession made to a village sarpanch with request to save him from police is a confession made in lieu of promise. Hence, it is not made voluntarily and is inadmissible. Option (4) is incorrect: Confession made to a police officer, if leads to discovery of facts, is admissible in evidence.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, a secondary evidence can be given for public document in the form of certified copies. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a secondary evidence can be given by a person who has himself seen it, where the original has been destroyed. Option (3) is correct: Where the original document in itself is inadmissible in evidence, secondary evidence cannot be admissible. Option (4) is incorrect: When the original is not easily movable, a secondary evidence can be given in any manner under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, whether will is registered or not, one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, whether it is admitted by the heir, at least one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (4) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act deals with abetment of suicide by a married woman. Option (2) is incorrect: Section 114(B) of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption of existence of certain facts. Option (3) is correct: Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to dowry death. Option (4) is incorrect: Section 114(A) of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (4) is correct: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, if A would have made a complaint after being ravished, then it becomes relevant as a conduct. Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not relevant as a substantive piece of evidence. Option (3) is incorrect: Secondary evidence is always given as a proof of a document. It is not relevant. Option (4) is correct: Here, A, without making a complaint said that she had been ravished. It may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1) or as corroborative evidence under Section 157. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Whatever said by A or B or slanders is relevant as facts are the occasion of relevant facts.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, harm is the consequence of defamation. It is not relevant in evidence. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, facts in the given situation are not necessary to explain the fact in issue. Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, it is relevant because the facts are proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation.

Option (2) is correct: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a 'document' means any matter expressed of or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. Option (3) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a 'document' has wide definition. 'Documents' can be expressed or described upon any substance. Option (4) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, all the things expressed or described by means of letters, figures or marks are documents, and not only archaeological things. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence act, facts judicially noticeable need not be proved. Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence act, facts admitted need not be proved. Option (3) is correct: All facts may be proved by oral evidence, but contents of documents cannot be proved by oral evidence. Option (4) is incorrect: Under Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct.

Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, admissions made by parties must not be in writing only. Admissions can be either oral or in writing.

Option (1) is incorrect: The fact does not show motive for fact in issue. Option (2) is incorrect: The fact does not give introduction for fact in issue. Option (3) is incorrect: The fact does not show preparation for fact in issue. Option (4) is correct: Under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, it makes the existence of fact in issue highly improbable.

Option (1) is correct: When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is always on prosecution. Option (2) is incorrect: The accused has the right to defend himself. Option (3) is incorrect: The burden is only on the prosecution side. Option (4) is incorrect: It does not depend on the circumstances of the case. It is always on prosecution.

Options (1), (2) and (3) are incorrect. Option (4) is correct: Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'not proved' when it is neither proved nor disproved.

While taking evidence, the court has to see that the evidence is confined to the matter in issue. Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay evidence must not be admitted until it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it. Hence, option 3 is correct. Option (4) is incorrect: The main object of the Indian Evidence Act is to give best evidence in all cases. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Accomplice is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. Option (2) is incorrect: Accomplice is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. His evidence would be relevant in evidence. Option (3) is incorrect: The court cannot believe his evidence blindly, but can take into consideration. Option (4) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, his evidence is relevant under Sections 114 and 133 of the Indian Evidence Act.