A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen It is proposed to prove tha...........

Indian Evidence Act (IEA) 1872 Examination of Witnesses

A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. Applying Section 136, Indian Evidence Act:

The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property

The Court may, in its discretion, require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved

The Court may permit the denial of the possession, to be proved before the property is identified

All of them

Explanation:

- Option 1: The denial's relevance could be dependent on whether the identity of the property is confirmed. For the denial to affect the outcome, the property in question must be clearly identified as the allegedly stolen item.

- Option 2: The court may use discretion to require identification of the stolen property before proving possession denial. This ensures that the denial is pertinent and linked directly to the specific property in question.

- Option 3: Alternatively, the court may allow proof of the denial of possession before the property is specifically identified. This can be useful if establishing a timeline or sequence of events is necessary.

- Option 4: All options are applicable as they represent different approaches the court may take depending on the context and details of the case.

Correct Answer: Option 4 - All of them.