Important Judgement Writing Questions for Judiciary Exams

Judgment writing is an essential part of the Judicial Services Examination. In almost all judiciary mains exams, you will face questions related to judgment writing.

Also, it carries a good weightage of marks in the exam. If you write it well, you can easily crack the exam with a high score.

This post shall guide you through the critical judgment writing questions for judiciary exams, best tips for judgment writing, and more.

How to Attempt Judgement Writing Questions in Judiciary Exams 2021

Most aspirants preparing for the judicial services exam often ask for the best Preparation Tips for Judgment Writing

To ease your preparation, we have developed smart tricks and tips that help you better understand how to attempt Judgment writing questions for Judiciary Exams.

  • Judgment Writing is like a Mathematics problem that involves step marking.
  • Hence, sticking to a proper format of a court's judgment and attempting each stage of the assessment will exponentially increase your marks.
  • Avoid the temptation to use technical Legal Jargon or vocabulary.

Download Free Study Material for Judiciary Exams by Judiciary Gold

  • Try to use simple language that anyone can understand.
  • While attempting the question, diligently read all the facts given and mark the critical points to ensure that you do not miss out on them.
  • Prepare a rough format of the judgment by taking out a minute not to skip any vital piece of information.

judiciary mock tests

judiciary mock tests

Important Judgment Writing Questions for Judicial Services Exams 2021

To help you get an idea about the type of questions asked from this topic, we have provided a few essential questions curated from the previous year's Question Papers for Judiciary Exams.

Question 1:

"A" lives in one of the residential houses of the HEL colony, Bhopal. On 1-5-2017 after taking his meals at 10:00 pm in night 'A' after locking his house left for attending a marriage function in a neighboring colony.

'A' returned to his house at 3:00 a.m. when he comes to the house he saw that someone one has broken the lock and from inside the house, his new hero bicycle frame no H.5394 is taken away. 'A' rush to the police station and lodged F.I.R Sub Inspector B investigated the offense.

During the investigation, B  came to know from that C on date of incident on midnight D was seen the nearby house of A. D was taken into custody and B prepared a memorandum and got it signed by accused D and witnesses E and F. Hero bicycle has been recovered from the house of D in presence of D and witnesses E and F by B. Seizure memo was prepared and the bicycle was sent to the executive magistrate for identification.

IP was held and A identified the bicycle. Police filed a police report and the court after framing charges tried the case.


Accused has taken the defence that he had inimical terms with A and therefore A has falsely implicated him.

Evidence of Prosecution:

1. A deposed the fact of housebreaking and theft of his bicycle deposed the fact of IP and its memo. Cross-examination NIL.

2. E and F were produced to prove seizure and memo but they did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution. They admit their signature in memo and seizure, and they also admitted that because of the threat given by the accused they are not supporting the prosecution.

3. Witness C disposed of that he saw the accused on a relevant day in mid-night near the house of A. Cross-examination NIL.

4. B deposed that the fact regarding memo, seizure, and investigation. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of false implication by A.

5. Executive magistrate 'G' deposed the fact of Ip and the identification memo of the recovered bicycle. Cross-examination NIL.

Evidence of Accused : NIL


Prosecutor argued that from evidence charges against the accused are proved.

Defence argued that E and F were independent witnesses but they did not support the prosecution in spite that if the accused is held guilty, he being a student of 19-year should be allowed benefit under probation law because this is his first offense and his conduce expect the case has always remain good.