4-Confession Acc. to J.

Stephen, "Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a

crime, stating or suggesting an inference that he committed the crime." term "confession' is made clear by
the Supreme Court in Palvinder Vs. State, A.1.R. 1952, S.C. 354. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
relying upon the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayana Vs. R., 66 1.A. 66.
Gadhapurni Vs. The State, 1980 Cr. L.J. 188 as to when an admission amounts to a confession are relevant:-
"To make admission a confession, it must be addressed to some person. So, if the accused goes around the
village shouting that he had Vs. State of Orissa, 1992, Cri. L.J. 2701. Irrelevant?_-A confession becomes
irrelevant and inadmissible in the following three cases- 1. Confession Caused by Inducement Threat or
Promise from a Person in Authority -According to S. 24, a confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any (i)
Inducement, (ii) Threat, or (ili) Promise (a) Having reference to the charge aganist the accused, (b)
Proceeding from a person in authority. (c) Sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person
ground which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it. Confession when relevant:
1. Confession made After Removal of Threat, Inducement or Promise--According to S. 28, such a confession
as is referred to US, 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threar or promise has,
in the opinion of the Court. 2. Confession made under Promise, Deception,etc.- According to S. 29, if a
confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant, merely because it was made (a) Under a
promise of secrecy; Or (b) In consequences of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose
of obtaining it; Or (c) When the accused was drunk; Or (d) In answer to questions he need not have
answered; Or (e) When the accused was not warned that:-(i He was not bound to make such confession,
and that:-(ii) Evidence of it might be given against him. 3. Confession Leading to Discovery of Fact-

Doctrine of Estoppel- "There is said to be an estoppel where a party is not allowed to say that a
certain statement of facts is untrue, whether in reality it is true or not, Estoppel, or "con-clusion" as
it is frequently called by the elder authorities, may, therefore, be defined as a disability whereby a
party is precluded from alleging or proving legal proceeding that a fact is otherwise than it has
been made to appear by the matter giving rise to that disability." For Examples

(i A trustee mortgaged the trust properties alleging that he was the owner of the properties. The
mortgagee, in good faith and without notice that the properties belonged to the trust took the
mortgage. He (the mortgagee) obtained a decree and the properties were sold. The trustee
subsequently filed a suit to recover the property from the auction purchases on the ground that
the properties were the trust properties and he had no power to mortgage them. It was held that
the trustee was estopped from saying that he was not the owner of the property though it might
be true.

(in) Where a tenant, having only non-transferable interest in a holding, sells it alleging that he has a
transferable right in it, he cannot be allowed, afterwards to say that he had no transferable interest
in the property.

(iii) A owned a plot measuring 3 Biswas. He mortgaged 1 Biswas of it to B. Subsequently, in

execution of a money decree 2 Biswas of the land was put to auction and it was purchased by C.
The mortgagee B accepted a part of sale consideration towards his mortgage money.

Giving out by this conduct of his that the area mortgaged to him was also sold. Afterwards B sued C
for the sale of 1 Biswa under his mortgage. It was, held that he was estopped by his own conduct.

Definition of Estoppel--According to S. 115, when one person has by his declaration, act or
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act
upon such belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding
between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. For
Example; A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby
induces B to buy and pay for it.

The land afterwards becomes the property of A and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that
at the time of the sale, he had no title.

He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Essentials of Estoppel--The main ingredients of estoppel as defined U/S. 115 i.e., estoppel in pais
are as under-

1. There must be some Representation--The representation in order to form the basis Of an

estoppel may be made either by ( Statement or by (i Conduct and conduct includes negligence.
Certain general propositions are, however, applicable whatever manner the representation may be
made.

2. It must be Made with the intention of being Acted Upon-It is not necessary that the
representation should be false to the knowledge of the party making it provided that (i) it is
intended to be acted upon in the manner in which it was acted upon, or (il) the person who makes
it so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true, and believe
that it was meant that he should act upon it in that manner.

In B. Colema & Co. Vs. P. Dass Gupta, AIR 1970, it was held that the doctrine of estoppel by
representation ought not to be, in most cases applied unless the representation is such as to
amount to the contract or the license of the party making it.

3. The Representation must have Acted Upon- To invoke the benefit of estoppel it has to be proved
that the representation has been acted upon. The representation must have been acted upon
taking it to be true by the party to whom it was made. Estoppel can arise only if a party to a
proceeding has altered his position on the faith of a representation or promise made by another. A
representation made to one person cannot be taken advantage of by another person to whom it
was not made. It is not sufficient that the party complaining acted in a manner consistent with the
truth of the representation if it appears that he was not influenced by it. On the other hand if he
really has relied upon the truth of the representation, it is no answer to say that if he had thought
about it he must have known that it was untrue.

Nature of Estoppel- Estoppel is often described as a rule of evidonce but the whole concept is more
correctly viewed as a substantive rule of law.

Kinds of Estoppel--Estoppel is of three kinds-

1. Estoppel of Record or Quasi-Order- Estoppel of record or quasi of record arises (i) where an issue
of fact has been judicially determined, in a final manner between the parties by a tribunal having
jurisdiction concurrent or exclusive in the matter, and same issue comes directly in question in
subsequent proceedings between the same parties; (ii) Where the first determination was by a
court having exclusive jurisdiction, and the same issue comes incidently a question in subsequent
proceedings between the same parties; (ill) In some cases where an issue of fact affecting the
status of a person or thing has been necessarily determined in final manner as a substantive part of
a judgment in rem of a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine that status of a person or thing has
been necessarily determined in final manner as a substantive part of a judgment in rem of a
tribunal having jurisdiction to determine that status, and the same issue comes directly in question
in subsequent civil proceeding between any party whatever.

Where the earlier decision is that of a court of record, the resulting estoppel is said to be "of
record"; where it is of any other tribunal, whether constituted by agreement of parties or
otherwise, the estoppel is said to be quasi of record.

Estoppel by record in the name of res-judicata has been dealt with in Civil Procedure Code. S. 40 to
43 of the Evidence Act provide for the admissibilities of previous judgments.

2. Estoppel by Deed--Where, in a deed made between party and verified by their seals, there is a
statement of fact, an estoppel results, and is called "estoppel by deed", if upon the true
construction of the deed the statement is that of both or all the parties, the estoppel is binding on
each party; if otherwise, it is only binding on the party making it. It seems that an estoppel also
arises upon the true construction of the deed the statement is that of both or all the parties, the
estoppel is binding on each party; if otherwise, it is only binding on the party making it. It seems
that an estoppel also arises upon a deed, all the mode of its execution being equally solemn with
that of deed made inter parties.

Estoppel by deed is based on the principle that when a person has entered into a solemn
engagement by deed under his hand, he shall not be permitted to deny any matter which he has so
asserted. It is a rule of evidence according to which certain evidence is taken to be of so high and
conclusive a nature as to admit of no contradictory proof.

3. Estoppel in Pais i.e.,

, Estoppel by Conduct--Where one has

either by words or conduct made to another a representation of fact, either with knowledge of its
falsehood or with the intention that it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that
another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended
to be acted on, and that other has acted on the representation and thereby altered his position to
his prejudice, an estoppel arises against the party who made the representation, and he is not
allowed to cover that the fact is otherwise than he represented it to be.

Estoppel of Tenant and of Licensee of Person in Possession-According to S. 116, no tenant of

immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall during the continuance of the
tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the
tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable
property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such
person had a title to such possession at time when such license was given.

S. 116 deals with estoppel between

A tenant and his landlord, and,

Licensee and licensor.
Tenant cannot Deny the Title of Landlord "A tenant may not dispute the right of his landlord by
saying that he had nothing in the property." The ground of the doctrine is that inasmuch as the
parties have approved that they should stand in the relation of landlord and tenant, and the one
accordingly receives possession from the other and enters premises, so long as he continue in
possession, he cannot be heard to deny the state of facts which he had agreed shall be taken as the
basis of the arrangement; in other words he cannot set up that the landlord had no legal title.
Licensee There is no distinction between the law of estoppel of a licensee and that of a tenant. A
licensee who has obtained possession through the licence, before he can show that his licensor had
no title when he granted the licence, he must first surrender possession of the premises. When the
occupation of the defendant is proved to be permissive, he is estopped from denying the title of
the plaintiff. This section clearly states that licensee ought not to deny the title of the licensor.
A asked B's leave to take some vegetable from his (B's) garden.

Having received the key fraudulently he took possession of the garden and then refused to vacate.
In a suit for ejectment by B, he (A) cannot be allowed to say that B had no title to the garden when
he granted the permission.

Estoppel of Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, Bailee or Licensee According to S. 117, no acceptor of a bill
of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to
endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at
the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such
licence.

Explanation 1. The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the
person by whom it purports to have been drawn.

Explanation 2.-If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove
that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

83

S. 117, deals with further instances of estoppel by agreement.

Under this section an acceptor of a bill-of-exchange cannot deny that the drawer had authority to
draw such bill or to endorse it. But he may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by
whom it purports to have been drawn. A bailee or licensee cannot deny that his bailor or licensor
had, at the commencement of the bailment or licence, authority to make the bailment or grant the
licence. But a bailee, if he delivers the goods bailed to a third person, may prove that such person
had a right to them as against the bailor.

Q. 21. What is a leading question? When can it be asked?

When can it not be asked?

Ans. Meaning of Leading Question--According to S. 141, any question suggesting the answer which
the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.

Thus, a question is leading one when it indicates to the witness the real or supposed fact which the
examiner expects and desires to be confirmed by the answer. Is not your name Shyam? Do you
reside at Allahabad? Are you not in service of Shyam? Have you not lived for ten years with Shyam?
are the examples of leading questions. In leading questions while the examiner pretends ignorance
and is asking for information is in reality giving the answer instead or receiving it.

The leading questions are by no means limited to, those which may be answered by yes or no.

When can a Leading Question not be Asked? According to S.

142, leading questions must not, if objected by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-
chief, or in re-examination, except with the permission of the court.

Leading questions cannot ordinarily be asked in examination-in-chief or re-examination. The

witness is presumed to be biased in favour of the party examining him, and might thus be
prompted. The reason for excluding leading questions is quite obvious; it would enable a party to
prepare his story and evolve it in his very words from the mouth of his witness in Court. It would
tend to diminish chances of detection of a concocted story. If a witness is allowed to give his
narrative in his own words, he is likely if the story is made up, to leave some loop-holes, to which
the cross-examiner will scarcely fail to direct his attack.

It may be noted that Leading question can only be asked when they refer to matters which are (i)
Introductory; (il) Undisputed; or (iii) Sufficiently proved. For, if such questions were not allowed,
the examination would be most incorveniently protracted.