Admission under Section 17 to 23 and 31 of the IEA, 1872

Question: What are the key aspects of Admission and Confession under the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

The concepts of ‘Admission’ and ‘Confession’ are critical components in the law of evidence, particularly under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These concepts are essential for understanding how statements made by parties can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. Sections 17 to 31 of the Act provide a comprehensive framework for admissions and confessions.

Main Body

Introduction

• ‘Admission’ is defined under Sections 17 to 20.
• Section 21 discusses the relevancy, use, non-use, and exceptions related to admissions.
• Section 22 deals with the relevancy of oral admissions regarding the contents of a document.
• Section 22A concerns oral admissions about the contents of electronic records.
• Section 23 outlines when admissions are not relevant in civil cases.
• According to Section 31, admissions are not conclusive proof but may operate as estoppels.

Case Law:

• Sahoo v. State of U.P.: The Supreme Court stated that a statement is a genus, admission is the species, and confession is the sub-species.
• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar: Confession is a species of admission.
• Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. The State of Bombay: The Supreme Court elaborated on the primary meaning of ‘statement.’

Meaning of ‘Statement’

• A ‘statement’ is something that is stated verbally or in writing.
• It includes both oral and written forms.
• Communication of the statement is not necessary for it to be considered as such.

Communication of Admission or Confession

• Communication of an admission or confession to a third person is not necessary.
• Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. The State of Bombay: The Court, referencing Section 21, Illustration (b), concluded that communication of an admission is not necessary.
• Central Bureau of India v. V.C. Shukla: Supported the notion that entries in a book without communication can be an admission.

Justification

• The justification for considering admissions and confessions as relevant facts is based on their nature as declarations against the interest of the person making them, implying their probable truth.

Manner of Proving Admission and Confession

Question: How to prove admission and confession?

• The probative value of an admission or confession does not depend on its communication to another but must be proven like any other piece of evidence.
• Proof can be offered through witnesses who heard the oral admission or confession.
• For written confessions, entries in diaries or documents can serve as proof without needing communication to others.
• Sahoo v. State of U.P.: Illustrated that written or oral statements can be proven similarly in court.

Conclusion

Admissions and confessions play a pivotal role in the law of evidence, providing significant insights into the matters under judicial consideration. The Indian Evidence Act meticulously outlines the parameters for their use, ensuring that these statements are treated with the seriousness they warrant. Through various judicial interpretations, the principles surrounding admissions and confessions have been clarified, reinforcing their importance in the legal process.

Question: What are the provisions related to ‘Admissions’ under Sections 17 to 23 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

Admissions are a crucial aspect of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They are statements that provide inferences about facts in issue or relevant facts. Sections 17 to 23 and Section 31 of the Act elaborate on the definition, scope, and implications of admissions in legal proceedings.

Main Body

Sections 17 to 23 & 31: Admissions

Section 17: Admission Defined

An admission is a statement, whether oral, documentary, or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It must be made by any of the persons and under the circumstances mentioned in the following sections.

Section 18: Admission by Party to Proceeding or His Agent

Statements made by:

• A party to the proceeding.
• An agent authorized by the party to make such statements.

By Suitor in Representative Character Statements made by parties suing or sued in a representative capacity are not admissions unless made while holding that character.

Statements by:

1. Party Interested in Subject-Matter: Persons with proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter, made in their capacity as interested parties.
2. Person from Whom Interest Derived: Persons from whom parties have derived their interest in the subject-matter, if made during the continuance of such interest.

Section 19: Admissions by Persons Whose Position Must Be Proved as Against Party to Suit

Statements made by persons whose position or liability needs to be proved against any party to the suit are admissions if they would be relevant against such persons in related suits. These statements are admissions if made while the person occupies such a position or is subject to such liability.

Illustration: A undertakes to collect rents 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 owed B rent is an admission and is relevant against A if A denies C’s debt to B.

Section 20: Admissions by Persons Expressly Referred to by Party to Suit

Statements made by persons to whom a party has expressly referred for information about a matter in dispute are admissions.

Illustration: If the question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound, and A tells B to ask C because C knows all about it, then C’s statement is an admission.

Section 21: Proof of Admissions 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. However, they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or his representative, except in the following cases:

1. When it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third parties under Section 32.
2. 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. If it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Section 22: When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents Are Relevant

Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless the party proposing to prove 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.

Section 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.

Section 23: Admissions 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. However, such admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it forms part of a correspondence.

Section 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.

Conclusion

The provisions under Sections 17 to 23 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act detail the circumstances and manner in which admissions can be considered relevant in legal proceedings. These sections highlight the importance of admissions as statements against interest and establish their evidentiary value, reinforcing the principle that such statements, though not conclusive, can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

Question: What are the provisions and illustrations related to the proof of admissions under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, details the conditions under which admissions can be proved against the person making them and when they can be proved by or on behalf of that person. This section is crucial for understanding the admissibility and evidentiary value of admissions in legal proceedings.

Main Body

Section 21: Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on Their Behalf

Admissions are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes them or his representative in interest. However, they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:

1. Admission Relevant Under Section 32 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 persons under Section 32.
2. Statement as to Existence of State of Mind or Body 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. Statement Relevant Otherwise Than as Admission An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Three Parts of Section 21

1. First Part: Admissions are relevant.
2. Second Part: They may be proved against the maker.
3. Third Part: Three exceptions allowing admissions to be used in favor of the maker.

Exceptions Explained:

1. Clause 1: Statement relevant under Section 32 (Illustrations b & c).
2. Clause 2: Statement as to the existence of a state of mind or body (Illustrations d & e).
3. Clause 3: Statement relevant otherwise than as admission (Illustrations d & e).

Illustrations

Illustration (a): The question between A and B is whether a certain deed is forged. A affirms 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. However, A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.

Illustration (b): A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, indicating 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).

Illustration (c): A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, bearing the Lahore post-mark. The statement in the date of the letter is admissible because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under Section 32, clause (2).

Illustration (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.

Illustration (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 skillful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person examined it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the preceding illustration.

Conclusion

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a comprehensive framework for proving admissions. It establishes the general rule that admissions can be used against the person making them while allowing exceptions where admissions can be proved by or on behalf of the maker. The detailed illustrations help in understanding the practical application of these provisions, ensuring that admissions serve their purpose in the judicial process effectively.

Question:

When are oral admissions as to the contents of documents and electronic records relevant under Sections 22 and 22A of the Indian Evidence Act?

Introduction

Sections 22 and 22A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, address the relevance of oral admissions concerning the contents of documents and electronic records, respectively. These sections are critical in determining the admissibility of oral evidence related to written and electronic records.

Main Body

Section 22: When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents are Relevant

This section states that oral admissions regarding the contents of a document are generally not relevant. However, there are two exceptions to this rule:

1. Secondary Evidence Exception:

• Oral admissions as to the contents of documents become relevant when the party proposing to prove them can show that they are entitled to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents under the rules contained in the Evidence Act (particularly under Section 65).

Genuineness of Document:

• Oral admissions become relevant if the genuineness of a document produced is in question. This means that when the authenticity of a document is disputed, oral admissions concerning its contents may be considered relevant.

Section 22A: When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Electronic Records are Relevant

This section extends the principles of Section 22 to electronic records. It states that oral admissions regarding the contents of electronic records are generally not relevant, with one exception:

1. Genuineness of Electronic Record:

• Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are relevant when the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question. This ensures that in cases where the authenticity of an electronic record is disputed, oral admissions regarding its contents may be considered relevant.

Comparison of Sections 22 and 22A

Rule:
- Section 22:
 • Oral admissions as to contents of documents are not relevant
- Section 22A:
 • Oral admissions as to contents of electronic records are not relevant

Exceptions:
- Section 22:
 1. When the genuineness of a document produced is in question
 2. When the party proposing to prove them shows entitlement to give secondary evidence of the contents under Section 65 of the Evidence Act

- Section 22A:
 • Only one exception: When the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question

Scope:
- Section 22:
 • Applies to physical documents
- Section 22A:
 • Applies specifically to electronic records

Number of Exceptions:
- Section 22:
 • Has two exceptions
- Section 22A:
 • Has only one exception

Secondary Evidence:
- Section 22:
 • Allows for secondary evidence under certain conditions
- Section 22A:
 • Does not mention provision for secondary evidence

Applicability:
- Section 22:
 • Broader application to various types of documents
- Section 22A:
 • Specifically tailored for the digital age and electronic records

Conclusion

Sections 22 and 22A of the Indian Evidence Act set clear guidelines for the relevance of oral admissions related to the contents of documents and electronic records. While generally, such oral admissions are not relevant, exceptions exist to address issues of genuineness and the necessity of secondary evidence. Understanding these provisions is crucial for legal professionals dealing with cases involving written and electronic evidence.

Question: When are admissions in civil cases relevant under Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, and how does Section 31 influence the proof of admissions?

Answer:

Introduction

Sections 23 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, outline the conditions under which admissions are relevant in civil cases and their evidentiary value. Understanding these sections is essential for legal proceedings where admissions play a pivotal role.

Main Body

Section 23: Admissions in Civil Cases When Relevant

Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act specifies the circumstances under which admissions in civil cases are relevant. The general rule is that admissions are relevant evidence in civil cases. However, there are two exceptions to this rule:

1. Express Condition:

• If the admission is made upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, it is not relevant. This means that if parties explicitly agree that a particular admission will not be used as evidence, the court will respect this agreement.

2. Implied Condition:

• If the circumstances suggest that the parties agreed that evidence of the admission should not be given, it is not relevant. The court can infer such an agreement from the context and conduct of the parties.

Explanation:

• The explanation to Section 23 clarifies that nothing in this section exempts legal professionals (barristers, pleaders, attorneys, or vakils) from giving evidence of any matter they may be compelled to disclose under Section 126, which pertains to professional communications.

Summary of Section 23

Rule: Admissions in civil cases are relevant.

Exceptions:

1. Express condition prohibiting evidence.
2. 2. Implied agreement prohibiting evidence.

Section 31: Admissions Not Conclusive Proof, But May Estop

Section 31 addresses the evidentiary value of admissions:

— Not Conclusive Proof:

• Admissions are not considered conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This means that while admissions can be used as evidence, they are not definitive and can be contested or disproven by other evidence.

— May Operate as Estoppels:

• Admissions may operate as estoppels under certain conditions provided elsewhere in the Evidence Act. Estoppel prevents a person from contradicting something they have previously stated or agreed to by law.

Conclusion

Sections 23 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act provide a nuanced understanding of the relevance and evidentiary value of admissions in civil cases. While admissions are generally relevant, explicit or implied agreements between parties can render them irrelevant. Additionally, while admissions are not conclusive proof, they may function as estoppels, preventing parties from contradicting their prior statements under specific circumstances. Understanding these provisions is critical for effectively navigating civil litigation.

Question: How do admissions and confessions function as exceptions to hearsay evidence, and what is their evidentiary value according to the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

Admissions and confessions play a crucial role in legal proceedings. Under the Indian Evidence Act, they are treated as exceptions to the hearsay rule and have specific evidentiary values. This response will explain the nature of admissions and confessions as substantive evidence and the burden of proof related to them.

Main Body

Hearsay Evidence: Admission & Confession

Exception to Hearsay Evidence:

• Admissions and confessions are considered exceptions to the hearsay rule. This means they can be accepted as evidence even though they are not made in court. In Sahoo v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that admissions and confessions fall within the exceptions to the hearsay rule because they are deemed to be reliable and carry inherent credibility due to their nature as statements against interest .

Admission as Substantive Evidence

Supreme Court Observations:

• Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves. This is established by Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, which state that admissions can be used as evidence to prove the matters stated within them. However, they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This principle was highlighted in Bharat Singh and Anr. v. Bhagirathi, where the Supreme Court observed that while admissions are substantive evidence, their conclusiveness can be contested .
• Further, in Bishwanath Prasad & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated that an admission by a party is substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of Section 21 of the Evidence Act .

Burden of Proof

Prosecutor’s Responsibility:

• The burden of proving an admission or confession lies with the party who asserts it. This is encapsulated in Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that the burden of proof regarding any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. This applies to admissions, confessions, and pleas of alibi.

Illustration:

• For example, if A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C, A must prove the admission. This principle ensures that the responsibility of proving an admission or confession rests with the party that benefits from it.

Conclusion

Admissions and confessions are significant in legal proceedings as they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and serve as substantive evidence. While they are not conclusive proof, their inherent credibility often influences the court’s decision. The burden of proving these admissions or confessions lies with the party presenting them, ensuring that they are scrutinized before being accepted as evidence. Understanding these aspects is essential for effectively navigating the legal landscape involving admissions and confessions.

Question: What was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bishwanath Prasad & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad & Ors., and how does it relate to the evidentiary value of admissions?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Bishwanath Prasad & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad & Ors. involves a dispute over property partition, where admissions made in prior proceedings played a pivotal role. This case illustrates the significance of admissions as substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Main Body

Bishwanath Prasad & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad & Ors.

Facts of the Case:

• The case was a suit for partition where the plaintiffs’ claims over certain properties were disallowed by the High Court. Two primary issues were at the forefront:

1. Whether the shop-room at the extreme northwest corner of plot №1238 belonged exclusively to the defendants first party.
2. Whether the properties mentioned in Schedule C of the plaint were joint family properties liable to partition.

Reason for Decision by Lower and High Court:

• The findings of both the lower court and the High Court were based on admissions made by the first plaintiff and the eighth defendant in depositions in an earlier suit, Title Suit №61 of 1945. These admissions were also reflected in the written statements filed by the present eighth defendant and the plaintiffs.
• The concurrent findings favored the defendant, Dwarka Prasad, and were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision:

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court’s reliance on the admissions made in the previous suit. The Court emphasized the importance of admissions as substantive evidence.
• The decision reiterated the principles established in the case of Bharat Singh and Anr. v. Bhagirathi. In this precedent, the Supreme Court held that admissions, duly proved, are substantive evidence under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted.

Legal Principle:

• The Supreme Court affirmed that admissions are substantive evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or whether the party was confronted with those statements if it made a contrary statement as a witness. The purpose of contradicting a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is different from the purpose of proving an admission.
• Admissions are considered substantive evidence of the facts admitted, while previous statements used to contradict a witness are not substantive evidence but serve to cast doubt on the witness’s veracity. The weight attached to an admission is distinct from its admissibility as evidence.

Conclusion

The case of Bishwanath Prasad & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad & Ors. underscores the role of admissions as substantive evidence in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted that admissions, once proved, hold significant evidentiary value even if they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This principle ensures that admissions are given due weight in judicial determinations, maintaining their crucial role in the Indian legal system.

Question:

What are the differences between an admission and a confession under the Indian Evidence Act?

Introduction

The concepts of admission and confession, though related, serve distinct purposes in legal proceedings and have specific definitions and applications under the Indian Evidence Act. Understanding their differences is crucial for applying them appropriately in both civil and criminal cases.

Main Body

Differences between Admission & Confession

1. Definition:

• Admission: Defined under the Indian Evidence Act (Sections 17 to 20), an admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
• Confession: Not defined under the Indian Evidence Act, but commonly accepted definitions include Atkin’s, which states that a confession must either admit the offence in terms or at least substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.

2. By Whom Made:

• Admission: Can be made by any of the persons specified under Sections 18 to 20 of the Act. This includes five persons under Section 18, one under Section 19, and one under Section 20. Admissions can also be made by the accused.
• Confession: Can be made only by the accused or co-accused.

3. Genus/Species:

• Admission: Is the genus.
• Confession: Is a species of admission, as stated by the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar.

4. Relevance:

• Admission: Relevant under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Confession: Relevant under Sections 27 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Admission by Co-accused:

• Admission: Is admissible only against its maker and not against others jointly tried.
• Confession: A statement made by an accused person is admissible against others who are jointly tried with him if the statement amounts to a confession.

6. Use in Favour of the Maker:

• Admission: Can be used in favour of the maker in exceptional cases, as outlined in three exceptions under Section 21.
• Confession: Cannot be used in favour of the maker.

7. Proceeding Type:

• Admission: Used in both civil and criminal proceedings.
• Confession: Generally used in criminal proceedings.

8. Classification:

• Admission: No specific kinds of admission.
• Confession: Two kinds — Judicial Confession and Extra-judicial Confession.

9. Nature of Evidence:

• Admission: In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi and Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, the Supreme Court observed that admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted.
• Confession: Judicial confessions are substantive evidence, whereas extra-judicial confessions are generally considered weak evidence and require corroboration for conviction, except in exceptional cases where they can be the sole basis for conviction.

Conclusion

Admissions and confessions, while both are forms of statements used in legal proceedings, have distinct definitions, uses, and legal implications under the Indian Evidence Act. Admissions can be made by a broader range of persons and are used in both civil and criminal cases, while confessions are specifically made by accused persons in criminal cases and have different evidentiary requirements and impacts.