ADMISSION – EVIDENCE ACT
17. Admission defined.
An admission is a statement, oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact-
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness.
Related Case- Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, 1974
Evidentiary value of admission-
Admission is based evidence against the meter and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. Admission implied by conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue.
Related case- Income Tax Officer versus Mangat Ram Norata Ram, 2011
Requirements of admission-
An admission must be clear and unambiguous in order that such an admission should relieve the opponent of the burden of proof of the fact said to have been admitted.
Related case- Joshna Gouda v. Brundaban Gouda, 2012
18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.
Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to made them, are admissions.
By suitor in representative character– Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
Statements made by-
(1) by party interested in subject matter; persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; OR
(2) by person from whom interest derived; persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
19. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit.
Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against the made if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject of such liability.
A undertakes to collect rent for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
20. Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.
Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B “Go and ask C. C knows all about it” C’s statement is an admission.
In eviction suit where person having power of attorney for tenants admits arrears of rent tenant subsequently cannot resile(abandon a position/back off) from such admission.
Related case- Ram Sahai v. Jai Prakash, 1993
21. Proof of admission against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they con not be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases-
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead it would be relevant as between third person under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged.
A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away.
Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course.
A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course, A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under Section 32, clause (2).
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.
He produces a letter written by himself and date at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post mark of that day.
The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2).
(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.
A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit.
He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was genuine.
A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.
22. When oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant.
Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless and until the party proposing them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
22A. When oral admissions as to contents of electronic records are relevant.
Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.
23. Admission in Civil cases, when relevant.
In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or Vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Section 126.
24. Confession by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.
Related to this Section-
Section 316 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.
No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Related to this Section-
Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George, or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882)
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
28. Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant.
If such a confession as is referred to in Section 24 is made after the impression caused by any inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court been fully removed it is relevant.
29. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secretary etc.
If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become it was made under a promise of secrecy. or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to question which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those question, or because he was not warned that he was bound to make such confession, and that the evidence of it might be given against him.
30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trail for same offence.
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
“Offence” as used in this Section, includes the abutment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C.
It is proved that A said- “B and I murdered C”. the court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trail for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said, “A and I murdered C”.
The statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A as B is not being jointly tried.
31. Admissions not conclusive proof but may estop.
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
(Next is easy and easily understandable)
BEST BOOKS FOR INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
Evidence Act by Batuk Lal
Evidence Act by KD Gaur
Evidence Act by Dr V Nageswara Rao
Evidence Act by BM Prasad
Evidence Act by Shakil Ahmad Khan
Evidence Act Bare Act
- Top 138 Legal Maxims for Law Exams - 7th January 2024
- 10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024 - 7th January 2024
- 11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024 - 7th January 2024