LAW OF EVIDENCE

L.Q 2] Define Admission. State the persons whose admissions are relevant.
1. Introduction
Admission is defined under Section 17 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 as a statement made by witnesses which
shows inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact in a case. According to this Section, Admission can be in the form
of a document, oral statement or may be contained in an electronic form., Admission in the Indian Evidence Act is
dealt with under Sections 17 to 31. Sections 17 to 23 deal with general admission whereas Sections 24 to 31 deal with
Confession. A Confession is an admission of guilt by the accused in a criminal case.
2. Meaning
the admissibility of evidence means any evidence or document used in a court of law to prove or disprove alleged
matters of fact. Sections 17 to 31 deals with admission and Confession.
Admission in evidence act can either be self-harming or self-serving (serve own interest). Self-harming evidence is
acceptable evidence in a court of law. Admission can be done by silence too. the admissibility of evidence means any
evidence or document used in a court of law to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact.
A confession is an admission of guilt by the accused in a criminal case that is acceptable and valid in evidence.
3. Definition
According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, admission is defined as any statement made by any of
the persons, It can be oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact
in issue or relevant fact, and under certain circumstances.
4. Persons who Can Make Admissions
According to section-18, 19 & 20 of Evidence Act-1872 following Classes of People can make admissions
Section-18: Persons who are relevent
1. Parties to the suits or Parties to the proceedings [sec.18]
The statements made by the parties to a proceeding as against himself are 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.
2. Agents of Parties (Agents Authorized by the Parties) [sec.18]
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. Persons occupaying representative character: [sec.18]
When a person such as trustees, administrators, 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 capacity will not be taken as an admission.
4. Persons having pecuniary interest (sec.18 (1))
In any such suit where several persons are interested jointly in the subject matter of the suit, then any admission made
by any 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 a prima facie foundation showing that joint
interest exists between the parties suing or being sued.
5. Persons from whom parties derived interest (sec.18 (2))
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.
6. Persons relevant to the issue (sec-19)
7. persons expressly referred to by party to suit. (Sec-20)
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.
4. Case Las: William Vs. Inn
In this case court held that whatever statement given by the referee that must be relates to the dispute
5. Types of Admission in Evidence Act
1. Formal Admission under the Evidence Act: 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 be proved.
2. Informal Admissions in Evidence Act: 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, neighbours, and so
on.
6. Conclusion
Hence, an evidence is admissible in Court proceedings only if it is relevant to the facts or issues or matters in dispute.
If evidence is admissible but irrelevant to the case then it is only a waste of time for the Court. Thus, evidence shall be
relevant and shall also satisfy all the specified provisions of admissibility then only it can be admissible in the Court
of Law. As of the present situation, even the electronic or digital records are admissible as evidence as they are
reliable, relevant and obtained from an authentic source of electronic communication, Evidence is the most integral
and indispensable element of any proceedings either criminal or civil and shall be safeguarded from any kind of
manhandling or else it might turn inadmissible in the Court.

S.Q : PLEA OF ALIBI

1. Introduction
It is the plea of absence of the person, charged with an offence, from the place of occurrence at the time of the
commission of the offence is named as plea of alibi.
2. Meaning & Definitions
The plea of alibi is recognized under Section 11 and Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Alibi is a Latin word that means “elsewhere” or “somewhere else”, The word ‘alibi’ is relevant in the studies of
criminal and evidence law. In evidence law, an alibi is a defence or an excuse used usually to avert the blame or
punishment given to the accused.
In a crime, the most essential part of proving the guilt of the accused is to prove that the accused was the person who
committed the crime, and the prosecution shall have to prove that the accused was present at the place where the
crime took place and has thus committed the crime. If the accused could defend that he was ‘elsewhere’ from the
place where the crime took place, he is said to have the defence of a plea of alibi.
3. Essentials of the Alib in Evidence Act
The following list of essential conditions have to take place for making the plea of alibi before the Court.

 There should be a crime.

 A crime must have been committed that is punishable by law.
 The person taking the plea of alibi should be accused of the said crime or charged with committing the crime.
 The accused must prove that they were not present at the crime scene when the crime was committed.
Or The accused must demonstrate that they were at a different location which would have made it impossible for
them to be present at the crime scene.
 The accused has to prove the plea with no reasonable doubt.
 The defence of plea of alibi must be raised as early as possible in the legal proceedings.

4. Illustration
A is accused of B’s murder on a particular date at Kanpur. On that day A was at Pune, is relevant to prove the plea of
Alibi. Now A will prove that it would be impossible for him to commit murder at Kanpur as he was in Pune.
5. Case Laws on Plea of Alibi
Munshi Prasad v State of Bihar 2001 (SC)
The Supreme Court held in this case that the accused’s presence at a reasonable distance from the place of occurrence
is necessary to prove a defence of plea of alibi, and the distance should be at least 500 meters.
6. Conclusion
The plea of alibi is a crucial defence in criminal cases, which can help an accused person establish their innocence. It
is recognized under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and can be raised at the earliest stage of the case.
The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish their presence elsewhere at the time of the commission of the
alleged offence, and the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.