Crime Scene to Court: Integrated Case Analysis (UGC-NET Unit I)
Published:
Questions
30
Duration
30 min
Faculty-reviewed
0
Updated
17 May 2026
About this mock
UGC-NET Forensic Science Paper II Unit I hard-band scenarios walking evidence from crime scene through laboratory examination to courtroom admissibility. Each scenario tests the specific procedural defect (broken chain link, panch witness lapse, Section 65B certificate flaw, hash mismatch, NDPS sampling lapse) that decides admissibility, or the Supreme Court precedent (Anvar P.V., Arjun Panditrao, Tomaso Bruno, Murugesan, Selvi, Murari Lal, Jai Lal) that saves or sinks the prosecution. Aligned to the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, CrPC 1973 and BNSS 2023.
Sources & references
Questions in this mock are written and verified against the following sources. Citations are recorded per question and shown in the explanation after submission.
- cited in 1 question
Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67; Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828
Privy Council and Supreme Court of India, foundational matrix for Section 27 IEA
Open source - cited in 1 question
Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 10 SCC 383
Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal, decided 30 August 2012
Open source - cited in 1 question
Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704; Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44
Supreme Court of India, applying the corroboration principle to fingerprint opinion evidence
Open source - cited in 1 question
Section 65B(4) IEA 1872 / Section 63(4) BSA 2023; Anvar P.V. (2014) 10 SCC 473
Supreme Court of India, on identity of the proper Section 65B certifier
Open source - cited in 1 question
Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435; State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752
Supreme Court of India, on hostile panch witnesses and survival of the recovery
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 531 (transitional provisions); Article 20(1) Constitution
Ministry of Home Affairs, BNSS 2023, in force from 1 July 2024; intertemporal application doctrine
Open source - cited in 1 question
Section 293 CrPC 1973 / Section 329 BNSS 2023
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1992) 3 SCC 249; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, (2004) 8 SCC 660
Open source - cited in 1 question
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473
Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012, decided 18 September 2014
Open source - cited in 1 question
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
Supreme Court of India, three-judge bench, decided 5 May 2010
Open source - cited in 1 question
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Sections 65A, 65B IEA / Sections 61, 62, 63 BSA
Supreme Court of India, on primary versus secondary electronic evidence
Open source - cited in 1 question
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1
Section 65B(4) IEA 1872 / Section 63(4) BSA 2023, on functional certifier test
Open source - cited in 1 question
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1
Supreme Court of India, three-judge bench, decided 14 July 2020
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Sections 23 and 24
Ministry of Home Affairs, BSA 2023, in force from 1 July 2024; mapping to IEA 1872 Sections 25, 26, 27
Open source - cited in 1 question
State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan, (2016) 2 SCC 607
Supreme Court of India; principle traced to Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435
Open source - cited in 1 question
Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704
Supreme Court of India, on weight of handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 IEA
Open source - cited in 1 question
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178
Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015, decided 20 January 2015
Open source - cited in 1 question
Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379
Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011, decided 28 January 2016
Open source - cited in 1 question
Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 10 SCC 383; Anvar P.V. (2014) 10 SCC 473; Tomaso Bruno (2015) 7 SCC 178
Supreme Court of India, on ranking procedural defects in an integrated case analysis
Open source - cited in 1 question
Section 293(2) CrPC 1973 / Section 329(2) BNSS 2023; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, (2004) 8 SCC 660
Supreme Court of India, on resolving contradictions between expert reports
Open source - cited in 1 question
Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379; Section 52A NDPS Act 1985
Supreme Court of India, on the correct sequence for NDPS sampling and disposal
Open source - cited in 1 question
Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67
Privy Council; applied in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269 and many later Supreme Court decisions
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 105
Ministry of Home Affairs, BNSS 2023, in force from 1 July 2024; early High Court interpretations
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Section 3(5); Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
Supreme Court of India, foundational decisions on common intention under Section 34 IPC, now BNS Section 3(5)
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Sections 61, 62 and 63
Ministry of Home Affairs, BSA 2023; Anvar P.V. (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao (2020) 7 SCC 1
Open source - cited in 1 question
Section 293 CrPC 1973 / Section 329 BNSS 2023; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, (2004) 8 SCC 660
Supreme Court of India, applying Section 293 to FSL reports in contested cases
Open source - cited in 1 question
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280
Supreme Court of India, on the foundational requirements for expert evidence under Section 45 IEA
Open source - cited in 1 question
Hari Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675
Supreme Court of India; principle reiterated in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (1953) and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
Open source - cited in 1 question
Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657; Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 502
Supreme Court of India, on chain of custody and seal-integrity requirements for forensic exhibits
Open source - cited in 1 question
NIST SP 800-86, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response
Section 4: Examining the Data and Preserving Integrity; CFSL Cyber Forensics SOP
Open source - cited in 1 question
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Sections 105 and 176(3)
Ministry of Home Affairs, BNSS 2023, in force from 1 July 2024
Open source
How our mocks are built
Questions are written and edited by the ForensicSpot team and cited from peer-reviewed forensic textbooks, official syllabi and primary case law. Each one is verified before publishing. Detailed explanations show after you submit, so the test stays a real test. See a mistake? Tell us.
Common questions
What does the Crime Scene to Court: Integrated Case Analysis (UGC-NET Unit I) mock cover?+
UGC-NET Forensic Science Paper II Unit I hard-band scenarios walking evidence from crime scene through laboratory examination to courtroom admissibility. Each scenario tests the specific procedural defect (broken chain link, panch witness lapse, Section 65B certificate flaw, hash mismatch, NDPS sampling lapse) that decides admissibility, or the Supreme Court precedent (Anvar P.V., Arjun Panditrao, Tomaso Bruno, Murugesan, Selvi, Murari Lal, Jai Lal) that saves or sinks the prosecution. Aligned t
How many questions and how long is the test?+
30 multiple-choice questions, 30 minutes total. Difficulty: hard. Tier: Premium.
Who is this mock for?+
Forensic science students and aspirants who want timed, exam-style practice with explanations and verified source citations on NET. Useful for postgraduate entrance preparation and for BSc / MSc forensic students testing their recall under time.
Are the questions reviewed?+
Each question carries a verified source citation. Faculty review for individual questions is in progress.
Do I need an account to take this mock?+
Yes, a free ForensicSpot account is required to start a timed attempt — this lets you save progress, see per-question explanations after submission, and track your topic-level performance over time.