lOMoARcPSD|13472816

Admission v. Confession

Tort law (NALSAR University of Law)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

Admissions vs. Confessions

INTRODUCTION
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872's Sections 17 to 31 deal with admissions and confessions.
The Act, however, views "confessions" as nothing more than a form of admittance. In this
approach, it is possible to define admissions in criminal instances as confessions. An
admission in this context is a declaration that is made orally, in writing, or electronically.

ADMISSIONS

Admission is a crucial component of the legal process. The work of the court is made easier if
one side can show that the other party admitted his case.

According to S. 17 of the Act, an admission is any statement—oral, written, or electronic—

that makes a logical inference about a pertinent fact or a fact at question.

S. 18 to S. 20 List the different groups of people whose admissions will be important.

According to S. 18:

a) A statement is considered to be an admission if it is made by a party to the proceeding

or by their representative to that party and is deemed by the court to have been made
with his express or implied permission in light of the circumstances.

b) Unless they were made when the party making them possessed that character,
statements made by parties to lawsuits, those suing or being sued in a representative
capacity, are not admissions.

c) Statements made by a party with an interest in the subject matter (whether proprietary
or financial) or by a person from whose an interest derives are admissions if they are
made while the interest of the parties making the statements is still in existence.

S. 19 lists confessions made by individuals whose positions must be shown against the party
bringing the lawsuit. If such remarks are pertinent as against such persons in respect to such
position or liability in a matter brought by or against them, then they are regarded as
admissions.

S. 20 states that statements made by those who are explicitly referred to as parties by a
lawsuit constitute admissions. ‘

Requisites of admission

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

1. It must be a statement, either oral or written;

2. It must make some inference about a significant fact or a fact at question;

3. It must be made by one of the people listed in sections 18 to 20:

i) Party to the proceedings

ii) Agent authorised by such party
iii) Party’s representatives, i.e., party suing or sued in a representative
character making an admission
iv) Person jointly interested in the subject-matter of the proceedings, i.e.,
person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter
of the proceedings
v) Persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest or
title to the subject-matter of the suit.
vi) Person whose position or liability is necessary to prove against a party to a
suit. This is case of admission by strangers to the suit if they occupy such a
position or are subject to such a liability
vii) Referee, i.e., person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for
information or opinion.

4. The statements must be made under the following circumstances: -

i) Admission by a representative of a party, if made while holding such

representative character.
ii) Admission by person jointly interested, if made during the continuance
of such interest
iii) Admission by person, from whom the parties to the suit have derived
interest or title, if made during the continuance of such interest
iv) Admission by stranger to the suit; when their statements would be
relevant in a suit brought by or against them
v) Admission by a referee in a reference to matter in dispute.

Reasons for admissibility of admissions

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

Although the term "admission" has not been used in the Evidence Act in the broadest sense, it
generally refers to a voluntary recognition of the existence or validity of a specific fact. It
solely addresses statements that are made orally, in writing, or electronically. Silence is also
an admission by action, so long as it is reasonable to expect a response or denial.

An admission is pertinent information. Admissions are made because a party's behaviour in a

hearing with regard to the disputed topic is a fact that bears on the issue and thus the
following can be said:

a) Admission is a waiver of proof. Every fact has to prove which is fact-in-issue or

relevant fact by the parties. But, a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses with the
necessity of proving that fact against him. It operates as waiver of proof. But it cannot
be regarded conclusive.

b) Admission as statement against interest: Admission means ‘conceding something

against’ the person making the admission. This is a general rule (exceptions are in S.
21) that admission should be self-harming. It is highly improbable that a person will
voluntarily make a false statement against his own interest. However, S. 17 does not
require that a statement should be a self-harming statement, the definition also include
self-serving statement.

c) Admission is evidence of contradictory statements.

d) Admission as evidence of truth: - The most widely accepted reason that accounts for
relevancy of admission is that whatever statements a party makes about the fact of
case, whether they be for or against his interest, should be relevant as representation
or reflecting the truth against him. Whatever a party says in evidence against himself.

e) Admission is an exception to hearsay rule. This is so because an admission, though a

hearsay, is nevertheless the best evidence. What is said by a party to the suit is not
open to the objection ‘that a party is going to offer worse evidence than the nature of
the case admits.

Exceptions to admissions

S. 21 contains 3 exceptions to admissions: -

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

1. An admission is relevant and may be proved against the author of it and his
representative in interest
2. Generally, an admission cannot be proved by or on behalf of the maker, or by his
representative in interest
3. Admissions can be proved by the maker or on his behalf or by his representative only
under the three following circumstances:
i) 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
ii) When it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body made
at or about the time when such state of mind or body exist and is accompanied by
conduct rendering its falsehood improbable
iii) When it is relevant otherwise than as an admission

Oral admissions as to contents of documents

The provision outlined in S. 64 of the Act is reiterated in S. 22, which states that a document
must be established by primary evidence, or by production of the document itself, except in
the instances that are specified below, in which secondary evidence is permitted.

S. 22 allows for the production of the contents of documents such as true copies, attested,
certified, xerox, and duplicate copies in addition to oral testimony. When a document is
produced and its authenticity is called into question, oral proof of admission may also be
provided.

However, unless the veracity of the produced electronic record is in doubt, oral admissions
regarding the contents of electronic records are irrelevant.

There are two exceptions to this rule: -

i) When a person is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of some

documents he will be entitled to rely on oral admission;
ii) Under S. 65 secondary evidence of the contents of a document can be given when the
original is lost or when it is in possession of the opposite party and so on

Admission in civil cases

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

Negotiations between the parties to buy peace typically take place outside of court with the
purpose of compromise. The sides to a negotiation make numerous statements throughout the
process. It will be impossible for the parties to negotiate a settlement if such statements are
permitted to be proven in court.

It is necessary that: -

1. There must be a civil dispute between the parties.’

2. There must be negotiations between the parties or their agents with a view to
compromise.
3. That negotiation must take place out of Court.
4. For this purpose, there must be express condition or circumstances from which the
Court can infer that the parties had negotiated.

CONFESSIONS

Confession, in a legal context, is the term used to describe an accused person's admission of
guilt.1 “A confession is an admission made at any moment by a person charged with a crime
that states or implies that he has committed the crime”, according to Stephen in his Digest of
Law of Evidence.

The word confession appears for the first time in S. 24 of the Act and requires the following
conditions: -

1. If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with, or

2. If he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet from the
statement some inference may be drawn that he might have committed the crime.

A confession can be judicial (strong) or extra-judicial (weak). A confession should be free

and voluntary and the following conditions must be satisfied: -

1. Where the confession is result of inducement, threat or promise, it is not voluntary.

2. That inducement, threat or promise should proceed from a person in authority;
3. Confession should relate to charge in question;
4. It should hold out some worldly benefit or disadvantage.

Burden of proof

1 Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 40.

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

In the event of a regular confession, the prosecution is not first need to show that the
confession is not the result of coercion, threat, etc. Both the accused and the court have the
right to request the exclusion of the confession, even suo motu.

According to S. 25 of the Act, a confession made to a police officer cannot be accepted

because it is deemed unreliable.2

A confession given to a police officer would be considered significant evidence in England.

The judge may grant admission if he is confident that there was no oppression and that the
statement was given freely, fairly, and voluntarily.

Confession while in custody

Confession must be voluntarily made for it to have any value. According to Section 26 of the
Act, a confession made by an accused person while in police custody cannot be used against
him unless it was made in the magistrate's immediate presence.

Since the purpose of Section 26 of the Evidence Act is to prevent police from abusing their
authority, confessions made by accused individuals while in police custody cannot be used
against them unless they are made in front of a magistrate. There is no formality needed for
custody, which goes beyond only physical custody.

S. 27 of the Evidence Act, is the second exception to the general rule that confession made to
the police is not admissible. S. 27 is a proviso to S. 26. It comes into operation only: -

a. When certain facts are deposed and discovered in consequence of information

received from an accused person in police custody;
b. If the information relates distinctly to the facts discovered.

This section is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.

Confession made after removal of inducement

The legality of confessions given after the effect of persuasion has passed is covered in S. 28.
According to S. 24, it is irrelevant and cannot be proven even against the person who made

2 Queen Empress v. Babu Lal (1884) ILR 6 All 509.

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

the confession if the court believes that the confession was the result of an incentive, threat,
or promise related to the charge and coming from a person in authority.

According to S. 28, if the accused receives an inducement, threat, or promise in exchange for
his admission of guilt but makes the admission after the court believes that the impression left
by the inducement, threat, or promise has been fully removed, the admission will be relevant
because it is now voluntary.

The impression created by threat, promise or inducement, etc. can be removed:

i) By lapse of time;

ii) by warning given by some person superior in authority to the person inducing or
making such threat or promise;

iii) by conduct of the person making threat or promise.

Confession made under promise of secrecy

Under S. 29, a confession, unlike an admission, is relevant even if it is made under promise
of secrecy. S. 29 lays down that if a confession is relevant, i.e., if it is not excluded from
being proved by any other provision of the Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be irrelevant if it
was taken from the accused by:

1. giving him promise of secrecy; or’

2. by deceiving him; or

3. when he was drunk; or

4. because it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have answered, or
because no warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and that
whatever he will be state will used against him.

Confession of co-accused

The usual rule that a confession of a crime is only admissible against the maker is an
exception found in S. 30. This clause allows the court to examine a confession against all
defendants when two or more people are tried concurrently for the same offence and one of
the defendants' confessions is proven.

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

Evidentiary value of confession

S. 24 to S. 30 discuss confession as opposed to admission and are included in S. 17 to S. 31,

which deal with admissions generally. This suggests that admission is a genus and
confessions are a species. All confessions are not all admissions, but all admissions are all
confessions. As a result, a remark that would constitute a confession under Sections 24 to 30
of the Criminal Code could also constitute an admission under Section 21 of the Civil Code.
The provisions of S. 18 to S. 21 do not simply apply in civil actions. Even in criminal
situations, incriminating remarks that are not covered by S. 162, CrPC, may be used as
confessions.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

Sl no. Admission Confession

1. An admission usually relates to civil A confession is a statement made by an

transaction and comprises all statements accused person which is sought to be
amounting to admission defined under proved against him in criminal
S. 17 and made by person mentioned proceeding to establish the commission
under sections 18, 19 and 20. of an offence by him.

2. Admissions are not conclusive as to the Confession if deliberately and

matters admitted it may operate as an voluntarily made may be accepted as
estoppel. conclusive of the matters confessed.

3. Admission may be used on behalf of Confessions always go against the per-

the person making it under the son making it.
exceptions provided in S. 21.

4. Admission by one of the several Confessions made by one or two or

defendants in suit is no evidence against more accused jointly tried for the same
other defendants. offence can be taken into consideration
against the co-accused (S. 30).

5. Admission is statement oral or written Confession is statement written or

which gives inference about the liability oral which is direct admission of suit.

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13472816

of person making admission.

Downloaded by Sitansi Mohanty (mohantysitansi@gmail.com)