UNIT 7 & 8

Admission is a statement that may be oral, documentary, or contained in electronic form,

which suggests any inference as to the fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any
of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.
The definition of admission is divided into three parts:

 It may be oral or documentary.

 Admission will be relevant only if it is made by any person specified in the Act. (this
list is to be found in Section18)
 Admission is relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act. (Such
circumstances are mentioned in section 18-30).

Admission is of three kinds:

 Formal or Judicial admission: Formal admissions are judicial admissions, and in
such a case, there is no need to prove the facts admitted. Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act says that the facts which are judicially admitted need not to be proved.
 Informal and Casual admission: Informal admissions are usually made in casual
conversation in ignorance of the possibility of it being used in future litigation. For
example, with friends, family, neighbour.
 Admission by conduct: Admission those are made by the conduct of a person are
said to be admission by conduct. For example- If a person during the informal
interrogation by the police ran away from that place, this conduct of that person is
said to be admission by conduct.

Admission As A Waiver Of Proof

When parties make an admission of fact, it, in turn, amounts to a waiver of proof of such a
fact. If a party admits any fact on its own, then there is no need to give evidence to prove
such a fact.

Admissions When Admissible

 Admission must relate to the subject matter.
 Admission must always be in the nature of self-harming form or statement.
 Admission must be made by persons and in circumstances mentioned under Section
18 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Who can make an Admission?
Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules regarding as to who can make an
admission. According to this section, there are five classes of persons whose statements will
be considered as an admission in a suit. These five classes are: –

1. Party to the proceedings: The statements made by the parties to a proceeding as

against himself is considered as a relevant admission. Under this Section, the term
‘parties’ not only means the persons who appear on the record in that capacity but
also includes those persons who are parties to a suit without appearing. Persons who
have an interest in the subject matter of the suit but are not parties on the record are
also considered as parties in the proceedings and their statements have the same
relevancy as the parties on record. Similarly, a person who although appears as a party
on the record but has no real interest in the subject matter will not have any effect
through his admission as against the person he is appearing on behalf of.

2. By the agent of such party who is authorised: The statements made by an agent in a
suit would be admissible as against the person he is representing. The statements
made by an agent are, however, binding only when they are made during the
continuance of his agency. So, when the agent’s right to interference has come to an
end any statement made by him after that will not have any effect on the principal.

3. Suitor in a representative character, when he held that character: When a person

such as trustees, administers, executors etc., sue or are sued in a representative
character, any statement made by them will only be admissible if made in their
representative character. Any declarations made by them in their personal capacity
will not be taken as an admission.

4. Party having pecuniary or proprietary interests: In any such suit where several
persons are interested jointly in the subject-matter of the suit, then any admission
made by anyone of the parties will be taken as an admission against himself as well as
the other parties jointly interested in the subject matter. It does not matter whether the
persons jointly interested in the subject-matter are suing or being sued jointly or
separately. However, for this rule to apply there has to be prima facie foundation
showing that joint interest exists between the parties suing or being sued.

5. Predecessor in the title (who was in the title before me): Any statement made by
the predecessor-in-title from who the party to the suit derives his title will be
admissible. But this will only be held as an admission if the predecessor-in-title made
the declaration while still holding the title and not after the title has been transferred.
The statement made by the former owner will not be considered as an admission as
against the parties if it was made title has been passed.
Section 19- Person Whose Position or Liability in Question Can Make
Admissions.
As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit are not considered as admissions,
but Section 19 is an exception to this rule.
It refers to the statements made by a third party as against himself when it affects his position
or liability and when such liability or position is relevant to be proved as against the party to
the suit. The statements made by the third party, in this case, would only be relevant if the
liability or position of that third party still exists at the time of the suit.

Section 20- Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit

This section refers to when a party to the suit refers to a third party regarding some
information a matter of dispute. Under this section, any statement made by such party will be
taken as an admission against the person who referred to the third party. This Section is
another exception to the general rule that statements made by strangers are not considered as
an admission.
Admission means conceding something against the person making the admission. The
sections deal only with admissions oral and written. Admissions by conduct are not covered
by the sections.

Evidentiary Value of Admission

Admission is not conclusive proof of the fact admitted as it is a piece of prima facia evidence
only. But it may operate as an estoppel. The person can be stopped to deny the truth of the
statement. The term estoppel refers to a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing
something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law.
Put simply, estoppel prevents one person from contradicting an action or statement from the
past.
The Supreme Court in Banarasi Das vs. Kanshi Ram, 1963 said, ‘it is a weak type of
evidence, and the court may reject it if the contrary is proved.’
In Bishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarka Prasad, 1974, the Supreme Court met further
observations-
1. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves though they are not the conclusive
proof of the matter admitted.
2. Admission duly proved are admissible in evidence irrespective of the fact whether the
party making them appeared as a witness or not.
3. Clarification: Admissions will be admissible even when the party is not called as a witness.
The purpose of contradicting a witness in section 145 and the object of proving admission
here is entirely different. In case of contradiction, it will be necessary to put the statement to
the witness so that he will have an opportunity to explain it. But it is not so required in
admission.
In this context, Justice Krishna Iyer pointed out that admission is substantive evidence. While
the purpose of section 145 is to clear doubt on the veracity (accuracy, truthfulness,
correctness, faithfulness, conformity to facts) of witness and does not become substantive
evidence.

Admission as Estoppel: Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act says that admissions are
not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, but it may operate as an estoppel. A person can’t
deny of the fact he admitted in court. And if it is treated as estoppel, rules of section 115-117
of the Indian Evidence Act will apply.

SECTION 21- PROOF OF ADMISSION AGAINST PERSONS MAKING THEM AND

BY OR ON THEIR BEHALF
According to Section 21, Admission may be used against the party making the admission, but
it cannot be used by the party who makes the Admission for his own use. This Section further
lays down three exceptions to this rule.
These exceptions are:
I. ADMISSION FALLING UNDER SECTION 32: An Admission can be used
by the person for his own use if the person making such Admission is dead. In
this case, such admission will be relevant as between the third person under
Section 32. Section 32 lays down that statements made by persons dead or who
cannot be found may be proved if it was made under the circumstances
mentioned in the Section.
II. STATE OF BODY AND MIND: An Admission made by a person regarding
the existence of the state of body or mind relevant can be used by the person
making such Admission if such a state of body or mind existed.
III. STATEMENT RELEVANT OTHERWISE THAN AS ADMISSION: An
Admission made by a person may be used by the person making it if it is proved
that the statement is relevant otherwise than as Admission.

SECTION 22- ORAL ADMISSIONS AS TO THE CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS

According to Section 22, when there is a document then nobody can be allowed to prove the
content of that document. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:
a. In the case the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of the
documents then he can rely on oral Admission.
b. In the case where the original document is lost or if it is in the possession of the
opposition party, then also the party may make oral Admission.
SECTION 22-A- ORAL ADMISSION AS TO THE CONTENTS OF ELECTRONIC
RECORDS
According to Section 22-A, when there is an electronic record then nobody can rely on the
oral Admission unless there is a question to the genuineness of such record.

SECTION 23- ADMISSION IN CIVIL CASES

Section 23 is only applicable to civil cases and do not extend to criminal cases. According to
this Section, an Admission in a civil case will not be relevant if it is declared that upon the
express condition made by the parties to the suit that the Admission should not be given or
under some circumstances the court infers that the parties have made an agreement that
Admissions will not be given. Section 21 lays down that when an Admission is given without
prejudice then such Admission will not be considered as relevant.

CONFESSIONS
The interference of the term Confession is explained under Section 17 under the definition of
Admission of the Act as it is nowhere defined individually in the Act. Section 24 to Section
30 deals with “confession”. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 164, 281, and 463
deals with confessions. A person who is charged with any criminal act when confers some
statement which directly suggests a conclusion is known as confession. In other terms
confession is admission by the accused. Confession is considered to be a weak type of
evidence as it is presumed that no person will make a false statement which could be used
against himself as evidence. Types of confessions:

Judicial Confession–

 Confessions made before the court or a magistrate during the proceedings of the case.
 Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers any metropolitan or judicial
magistrate to record confessions even without considering the jurisdiction of the case.
These are known as judicial confessions under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
 This type of confession is defined as a plea of guilty on arrangement.
 The judicial confession empowers only the judiciary to record statements and the
executive has no authority to record confessions.
 Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act governs the evidentiary value of confessions.
 The confession should be voluntary, and the accused has to be protected under Article
20(3) of the Indian Constitution which talks about “self-incrimination”.

Extrajudicial Confession–
  The confession which is not made before a court or magistrate comes under the
category of extra-judicial confessions.
 These confessions are usually considered an informal confession.
 Confessions made should be voluntary and it should not be made because of fear or
any inducement, threat, or promise.
 This confession can be made during a conversation to oneself, and it can be proved as
evidence against himself when it is overheard by another person.

Retracted confession:
 Any confession which is made voluntarily is taken back or revoked, then it is known
as a retracted confession.
 The court has the power to decide the credibility of such a confession. It differs from
each case because of the facts and circumstances.
 If the confession is proved, then it can be considered as a base for conviction.
 The retracted confession can be used as legal grounds for conviction only if the court
satisfies that the confession is true, and it is made voluntarily.
 But the retracted confession should be supported by corroborative evidence.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 24 specifies that confession by an accused is induced by threat or promise will
become irrelevant to criminal proceedings. If it appears to the court that the confession will
result in the gain of some person who is in authority or it would avoid any evil of temporal
nature, such confession is discarded from the case.
The main elements of this section are
• The confession should be a result of inducement, threat, or promise.
• Such threat or inducement should flow from a person in authority.
• The confession should be related to the charge imposed on the accused.
• The confession made should either benefit a person or detriment to a person.

This section does not need proof of a threat to exclude a confession, it only needs a
reasonable ground to believe that there was inducement or threat or fear interfering with the
confession. If there is a reasonable doubt that threat or promise has been involved in the
confession, then the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that there was no such
threat or promise. It is the right of the accused to be protected from such threat or
inducement.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act

 1. Confession made before police cannot be used as evidence to prove against the
accused of any offense.
2. The confession before the police is usually considered an involuntary confession.
3. The purpose behind this restriction is:
 To protect the accused person from third-degree treatment.
 To ensure a proper and fair investigation.
 To bring the actual culprit to the books.

4. If confession is recorded before the magistrate and if police are present at the place
will not be regarded as inadmissible.
Confession overheard by police is also admissible.
5. But a secret agent of the police is appointed to receive the confession will destroy the
validity of it.
6. The only confession before the police is not taken as evidence but the mere saying of
facts before the policy is taken into consideration.
7. If an accusation is done after a person’s statement, then such confession also cannot
be used against him.
8. Only the non-confessional part of FIR can be used against the accused.
9. If a confession is written by a person in a letter to the police, then it is admissible
because the police were not present when he wrote the letter.

Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act

1. Section 26 is an extension of section 25.
2. Section 26 prohibits the confession made by the accused in police custody.
3. But if there is a magistrate present during the confession, then it is admissible.
4. The magistrate under section 26 should be exercising his powers mentioned under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882.
5. The freedom of the accused and voluntary nature of confession is assured when the
magistrate is present.
6. A confession made before the village head (Pradhan) in police custody is also
inadmissible. The Head of the village cannot be considered as a magistrate.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

1. Section 27 acts as a provision to section 25 and 26.
2. This section says that if a confession is supported with the discovery of any fact then
it is considered as true, and such confession is admissible.
3. If a fact is discovered as a result of the statements of the accused, then the confession
made by the accused can be taken to prove against him.
 4. Section 25 and 26 imposes a complete ban on confession before police, but section 27
acts as a proviso to these sections and it permits confessions that allow discovering
facts in support of it.
5. If an accused confesses due to the torture of police but facts are discovered after the
statements, then it is admissible under section 27.
6. A confession becomes admissible if it satisfies the provisions of section 27 even
though it is prohibited under section 24 of the act.

Section 28 of the Indian Evidence Act

If the inducement, threat, or promise mentioned under section 24 is fully removed then such
confession is admissible. It can be removed by intervention by a person in authority or by
lapse of time. The burden of proving that the threat has been removed is on the prosecution.

Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 29 of the act tells that confession cannot be held irrelevant in a few cases:
• By giving a confession statement in the promise of secrecy.
• By giving confession when the accused was drunk.
• By answering questions to which he is not bound to.
• No warning was given to the accused.
Confessions are admissible as per section 29, even though the accused was not warned before
making it or was not bound to make it.

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act

1. When more than one person is jointly tried for the same offense, then the confession
statement of one person bounds the other persons also.
2. Such confession affects himself and other people who have jointly committed the
offense. The word offense in this section includes abetment or attempt of an offense
also.
Example: If A, B, C are jointly tried for the murder of D. Then if B gives a confessional
statement that A, B, and C have done the offense jointly, then the confession affects all three
persons. But confession of a co-accused cannot be taken as the “sole ground” for conviction
of all the accused.

Key Differences Between Confession and Admission

1. By the term confession, we mean a legal statement made by the accused in which
he/she concedes the guilt of the offence. In contrast, admission means acceptance of
truth or fact in issue or a material fact in a civil or criminal proceeding.
2. The confession is made in criminal proceedings only. On the other extreme,
admission is related to both civil and criminal proceedings.
 3. The confession must be made voluntarily, in order to become relevant. Conversely,
the admission does not require voluntary expression so as to become material.
However, it effects its weight.
4. The confession made can be retracted easily, but once the admission is made, it
cannot be retracted.
5. The confession is made by the person under indictment, i.e. accused. Unlike
admission, wherein the admission is made by any person, who can be the agent or
even a stranger.
6. Confession always goes against the person making it. On the contrary, admission is
used on behalf of the person making it.

Difference between Confession and Admission

S.
Confession Admission
No.

The confession is something which is made

by the person who is charged with any
When any person voluntarily acknowledges the
1. criminal offences and such statements may
existence of any facts in issue or facts.
infer any reasoning for concluding or
suggesting that he is guilty of a crime.

The concept of confession usually deals

The concept of admission usually deals with the
with the criminal proceedings and there is
2. civil proceedings and section 17 specifically deal
no such specific section
with the definition of admission.
defining confession.

If the confessions are purposefully and are

Admissions may be operated as estoppels because
made on someone’s own will then it may be
3. they are not conclusive as to the facts admitted by
accepted as conclusive of the facts
the person who in his statement admit some facts.
confessed by the confessor.

Admissions may be used with respect to the person

Confessions are always used or go against
4. who has admitted any facts or statements under the
the confessor of the statements.
exception of Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act.

As it is previously observed that admission cannot

Confessions confessed by more than one
be used against the person who is admitting the
person jointly for the same offence can be
facts by any statements as they don’t have much
5. considered against other accused of the
probative evidentiary value. Hence the admission
same crime under Section 30 of the Indian
made by the different personalities of the same suit
Evidence Act.
cannot be used as evidence against other persons.

6. Confession is the direct admission of matter Admission gives the conclusion about the liability
or facts of the cases either in the form of a of the person who is admitting any facts or matter
written or oral statement. either in the form of oral or written statements.