1723534562.png){kind=small}
DJS Topper Ishita Pal Rank 5 (SC) Interview
April 10, 2025
Overview: Achieving success in judicial exams is a long and demanding journey that requires unwavering dedication, a structured study plan, and a deep understanding of the law.
Here is how Urvi Pandey attained Rank 14 in Rajasthan Judicial Services 2024. Read this blog and understand how she confidently answered all the questions asked, and get your tips to hone your preparation.
Mock Interview with RJS Toppers Urvi Pandey Rank Interview
Here are the questions that were asked in the mock interview session; read them and get all the required information.
These topics are critical for candidates who are aspiring to become judges and need to understand the intricacies of law in areas such as Indian Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code, Negotiable Instruments Act, and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Each section will be explored in-depth with explanations, examples, and relevant case laws to enhance understanding and help aspirants prepare effectively for their exams.
1. Urvi Pandey's opinion on Living Relationship and Its Legal Status in India
One of the key topics discussed was Living Relationship, which is a non-marital relationship where two people live together without the formal institution of marriage. While Living Relationships are not legally recognized as marriages in India, courts have used judicial precedents to recognize certain long-term cohabitations as marriages under specific circumstances.
Legal Precedents: Several key judgments have shaped the status of living relationships. For example, the K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India case, which emphasized the right to privacy, can indirectly relate to living relationships by supporting the right to live together without legal hindrance.
Legal Recognition: In Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma, the court provided guidelines to determine whether a living relationship could be legally recognized as a marriage. The court stated that the relationship should be long-term (e.g., 10 years or more) and should involve the couple presenting themselves as married in society.
Criteria for Recognition: The couple’s societal recognition as a married couple and the duration of the relationship are key criteria. Legal recognition is not automatically granted, and it requires a case-by-case evaluation based on these factors.
2. Urvi Pandey's answer on Best Evidence Rule - Indian Evidence Act
The Best Evidence Rule is an important concept in Indian Evidence Law, especially under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This rule states that in order to prove a fact in court, the best and most reliable evidence should be presented. The Best Evidence Rule primarily deals with the presentation of primary evidence as opposed to secondary evidence.
Section 61, 64, and 65: These sections of the Indian Evidence Act emphasize the use of primary evidence (original documents) for proving a document. Secondary evidence, like photocopies or oral evidence, can only be used when the original document is unavailable or lost.
Oral vs. Documentary Evidence: As per Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence is generally not preferred when there is a documentary record available. This prioritization is because documents are considered more reliable than oral testimonies.
Case Law: The State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram case reiterates that primary evidence should always be presented over secondary evidence unless there is a legitimate reason for the unavailability of the original document.
3. Confessions and Statements Under CrPC - Section 27
The interview discussed the confession laws under Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a confession made by an accused in police custody to be admissible if it leads to the discovery of a fact related to the crime. However, this section has its limitations and exceptions.
Admissibility of Confessions: Under Section 27, a confession made to a police officer is admissible only when it leads to the discovery of evidence. The principle behind this is that the confession must be genuine and should lead to something tangible that can be proven.
Section 27 & Constitutional Law: The statement discussed whether Article 14 (Right to Equality) is violated by the practice of treating statements made during police custody as admissible evidence. The Nagendra Rai vs. State of Bihar case clarified that statements made to police officers, even by an accused not formally in custody, could be admissible in discovery of facts, based on judicial precedents.
4. Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Responsibility
An in-depth discussion about Section 84 of IPC was also covered, where it deals with criminal responsibility in cases where the accused is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of their act.
Section 84 IPC: This section exempts from liability any person who commits an offense while mentally unsound, meaning the person does not understand the nature of the act or its consequences due to mental illness.
Case Law: In R v. M’Naghten, the M’Naghten Rules established that a person who suffers from a mental illness that impairs their ability to understand right from wrong is not criminally responsible. This has been followed in India with Section 84 IPC.
5. Discovery of Facts - Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The topic of discovery of facts also came up, particularly under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The candidate explained that discovery of facts allows certain statements made by the accused to be admissible in court if they lead to the discovery of a fact related to the crime.
Distinction between Discovery of Facts and Discovery of Things: Discovery of facts refers to the tangible evidence found after a confession is made, whereas discovery of things involves the location or existence of physical evidence that is pointed out by the accused.
Case Law: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. J.S. Chopra case emphasizes how Section 27 is applied in criminal cases where confessions lead to the discovery of physical evidence. The statement made during police custody helps corroborate the case with physical evidence.
6. Urvi Pandey's answer on Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheques
The interview delved into Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the dishonor of cheques. The candidate was able to recall recent amendments in Sections 143A and 143B, which allow the court to award interim compensation to the complainant during trial proceedings.
Section 138: It deals with the punishment for dishonoring a cheque issued in the discharge of a debt or other liability. The law was introduced to make dishonoring of cheques a criminal offense.
Recent Amendments: Section 143A allows the court to award interim compensation during trial proceedings, which helps the complainant recover part of the damages even before the final judgment.
7. Urvi Pandey's answer on Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Transposition of Parties
The candidate was also asked about transposition of parties under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), particularly Order 23, Rule 1A, which allows the defendant to be substituted in place of the plaintiff if the plaintiff withdraws from the case.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, judicial aspirants must master the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act, and Negotiable Instruments Act. These concepts are foundational to understanding the intricacies of criminal law, and their proper application is crucial for success in judicial exams. Aspiring judges must engage with case law, legal precedents, and the core principles that govern the law. Regular practice and an in-depth understanding of these topics will equip candidates to handle any question in the judicial exam.