send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Necessity rule as to the admissibility of evidence is applicable, when the maker of a statement:
is dead or has become incapable of giving evidence
is a person who can be found but his attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expenses
is a person who cannot be found
all the above.
Alright, let’s break this down:
- The necessity rule is all about allowing statements into evidence when the person who made them can't come to court for a legit reason.
- Option 1? If the person is dead or just not able to testify (think: sick, mentally unfit)—that’s textbook necessity rule.
- Option 2? When they’re alive and technically out there, but getting them to court would mean loads of hassle, serious delay, or crazy expenses—again, that’s covered.
- Option 3? You’d use this rule if you just can’t find the person at all—they’ve disappeared off the map.
- So bottom line: All these scenarios fit. You’d apply the necessity rule in any of them.
Option 4: All the above, is correct.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses