admission (law of evidence)

Law of Evidence

admission

SUBMITTED TO:Mrs. Vibha Srivastav

SUBMITTED BY:MANOJ KUMAR

B.B.A.LL.B (H)7TH SEMESTER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mrs. Vibha

Srivastav who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the

topic Admission, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to

know about so many new things. I am really thankful to her.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot

in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Table of Contents Pg. no.

Acknowledgment…………………….…………………………………………………………………………….…2

Table of Contents…………………….……….………………………………………………………………….…...3

Understanding of Admission….…………………………………………………………………………………4

Scope of Admissions...………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Principle of Admissions……………………………………………………………………………………………6

Admissibility of Admissions……………………………………………………………………………………..7

Classifications of Admission………………………………………………………………………………….….8

Who can make Admissions?.....................................................................................................................11

Admission by third parties……………………………………………………………………………………...12

Conditions for Proof of Admissions…………………………………………………………………………13

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Understanding of admission

General Concept of Admission – In general, Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact. Importance is given to those admissions that go against the interests of the person making the admission. For example, when A says to B that he stole money from C, A makes an admission of the fact that A stole money from C. This fact is detrimental to the interests of A. The concept behind this is that nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed true. Unless A indeed stole money from C, it is not normal for A to say that he stole money from C. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a person. On the other hand, anybody can make assertions in favor of themselves. They can be true or false. For example, A can keep on saying that a certain house belongs to himself, but that does not mean it is necessarily true. Therefore, such assertions do not have much evidentiary value.

Admission as per Indian Evidence Act -

Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act defines Admission as thus - 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, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstanceshereinafter mentioned.

Scope of admissionsSection 17 defines the term “admission.” According to the definition an admission: (i) is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, (ii) which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and (iii) which is made by any person under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. Such circumstances as “hereinafter mentioned” have been mentioned in Sections 18 to 30.

Strictly speaking, the admission has been dealt with in Sections 17 to 23 and 31, whereas Sections 24 to 30 are also admission, but it is used as confession. Under the English law the term ‘admission’ is used in civil cases, whereas ‘confession’ is used in criminal cases. But, the Indian Evidence Act has not made such types of distinction. A confession is a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. Thus, a confession is also an admission made by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime.

In CBI v V .C. Shukla the Supreme Court has pointed out the difference between an admission and a confession. “Only voluntary and direct acknowledgement of guilt is a confession, but, if it falls short of actual admission of guilt, it may be used as evidence against the person who made it or his authorized agent, as an admission under section 21.” Admissions so made may not be taken as conclusive proof of matter admitted but are to be accepted as substantive evidence of fact admitted.

Principle of AdmissionsThe principle underlying the law of admission is that when a man makes statements he makes always in his favour except cases laid down in Section 21. By admission a person admits his liability, because the statement of admission suggests an inference of liability. Stating the reasons the Madras High Courts expresses that “if a party’s admission falls short of the totality of the requisite evidence needed for legal proof of a fact in issue, such an admission would be only a truncated admission.” An admission therefore, binds its maker and not relates to a question of law. Admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained. Admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making it. However, it is open to the person making admission to show why admission is not to be acted upon.

Secondly, an admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted whether the maker approves it or not. The relevancy of admission depends on the statement made by the party even though it may go against the maker. “Whatever a party says in evidence against himself…………………………… What a party admits to be true may be presumed to be so.” One basic principle is that the admission of facts is a proof against the party making it; but the admission on the point of law is not binding on the maker. An admission on a point of law is not admission of a ‘thing’ so as to make the matter of estoppels. And again, the admission of law by a counsel is not binding on a court and the court is not precluded from deciding the rights of the parties on a true view of the law.

Admissions are not conclusive proof of fact admitted. There must be unequivocal admission on which a court can base its decision or that the correctness and reliability of such an admission can be judged from other materials on record coupled with such admission. Where admission was found to be involuntary and in the nature of explanation and no warning was given required under section 164(2), Cr. P.C. the admission was held not admissible against the maker or the co-accused. If a person voluntarily admits any matter in issue before judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and such an admission is not retracted before being acted upon by the other side, it operates as an estoppel against the person making it; such an admission by person unless explained furnishes the best evidence. Vague statement in plaint, absence of signing on some blank papers and misuse of papers for concocting sale deed cannot be taken as an admission of execution of sale deed. Defendant was seeking declaration as only legally married wife of the deceased. Clear admission by defendant was that the plaintiff was also legally married wife of the deceased, but no evidence was led by defendant to establish plea of divorce between plaintiff and deceased. Under these circumstances the first appellate court accepted admission of the defendant as substantive evidence in support of marriage between plaintiff and deceased.

Admissibility of Admissions According to Phipson the admission is relevant on the following reasons.

1. “Admissions as waiver of proof:An admission of a party is a statement of fact which dispenses or waives with the necessity of proving the fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof. “Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect of the matter in dispute, whether by acts, speak or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. An admission, therefore as an admission is not conclusive against the person making it, but it may operate as an estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act. Under the proviso to Section 58 the court may ask some other independent evidence to support the admitted facts. The court is not bound to give judgment in accordance with admission.”

2. “Admissions as statement against interest:It is natural for a man to make statement in his favour. An admission, being a statement against the interest of the maker should be supposed to be true, for it is highly improbable that a person will voluntarily make false statement against his own interest.”

3. “Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements:Where there is contraction between the statements of the party and his case, the contradiction is relevant. For example, A sues B upon a loan. The account book shows that the loan was given to C. The statement in his Account Book contradicts his case against B.”

4. “Admissions as evidence of truth:The statements made by the party about the facts of the case, whether they may go in his favour or against his interest, should be relevant as representation or reflecting the truth as against him. Whatever a party says in evidence against himself may be presumed to be so.”

1)

Classification of admission1) Oral and Documentary

Section 17 defines admissions as statements “oral or documentary” and generally, the Evidence Act does not indicate any preference for the documentary vis-à-vis oral admissions. In most cases the difference might lie more on the reliability of a particular admission than whether it is written or oral. But, when it comes to the question of proving the contents of a document, Section 22 provides that the oral admissions of its contents are inadmissible “unless and until 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.” Thus, if the question is whether a document is genuine or not, an oral admission by the executants, for instance, that it is genuine may be sufficient to prove its genuineness. Its contents cannot be proved by oral admission unless the party shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence under Section 65. Section 65 insists that they can be proved by written admissions only.

2) Statement and Conduct

The question whether “conduct” as such can be treated as amounting to statement and the interface between statement and conduct under the Evidence Act have to be looked at from different perspectives.

a) Admission by Conduct

In contrast, the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, 2014, provide in “Definitions” in Rule 801:

Rule 801. Definitions that apply to this Article; Exclusions from Hearsay. --- (a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion written assertion, nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

Rule 801 (d)(2) states that a statement, as defined above, can be proved as against an opposing party and this would obviously include admissions. Hence under U.S. Federal Rules an admission can include “nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.” Section 20 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011, defines an admission as “a statement oral or documentary, or conduct….”

b) Confession by Conduct

As “confession” is treated as a species of admission, if an admission cannot consist of mere conduct, confession also cannot consist of conduct. Monir gives another dimension to the matter. He says:

A confession is a species of admission. It is defined in section 17 as an oral or documentary statement. Hence it follows that mere conduct like absconding is not a confession. To amount a confession, the act or conduct must amount to an assertion. What is not an assertion is only a circumstantial piece of evidence.

While absconding or hiding or concealing of weapon by the accused may not amount to statement but only a piece of circumstantial evidence as Minor rightly says, a nod (of “yes”) to the question: did you commit the offence? Would amount to an admission which is also a confession. Hence, a distinction should be made between the conduct of nods and gestures as assertions which are part of an oral statement amounting to admission or confession and mere stand-alone conduct like absconding which cannot be considered as statement.

c) Dying Declaration by Conduct

As will be discussed under Section 32, the words “statements, written or verbal” in that section have been held to include the conduct of signs and gestures made by the declarant in response to questions as part of dying “declaration” , as the term employed there is “verbal” and not “oral”.

d) Testimony by Conduct

As will be discussed under Section 119, “signs” made by a witness “who is unable to speak” or a dumb witness are “deemed to be oral evidence”. This provision must be treated as a special case as even written replies by the dumb witness are deemed to be oral evidence and no principle of general application can be drawn from this.

e) Statements not Conduct

While the above provisions look at the question whether conduct amounts to statements, Section 8, Explanation 1 states that statements do not per se amount to conduct and provides:

Explanation 1--- The work “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements, but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Who can make Admissions?Section 18 - Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party interested in subject-matter; by person from whom interest derived - Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to made them, are admissions.

By suitor in representative character - Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.

Statements made by - (1) by party interested in subject matter; persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; or

(2) by person from whom interest derived; persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

According to this section, statements made a persons who are directly or indirectly a party to a suit are admissions. Thus, statements of an agent of a party to the suits are also admissions. Statements made by persons who are suing or being sued in a representative character are admissions, only if those statements were made by the party while being in that representative character. Similarly, statements made by persons who have a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and statements made by persons from whom such interest is derived by the parties in suit, are also admissions if they are made while the maker had such an interest. For example, A bought a piece of land from B. Statements made by B at the time when B was theowner of the land is admissions against A.

Admission By Third PartiesSections 19 and deal with admissions made by persons who do not have any direct connection with the matter in dispute or, in other words, persons who may be called third parties. The two sections are exceptions to the general rule that admissions by strangers to the suit or “occasional admissions” are not admissible in evidence. However, an admission to be relevant under these sections, it should fulfill the conditions laid down in Sections 17 and 21. Section 19 provides: S. 19. - Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit- Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against the made if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject of such liability.

Illustration -A undertakes to collect rent 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 owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

Conditions for proof of admissionsIt is important to note that Indian Evidence Act does not require that an admission be of statements that are against the interests of the maker. All that is necessary is that the statement should suggest some inference as to a fact in issue or relevant to the issue, even if the inference is in the interest of the maker of the statement. Self serving prior statements are also admissions. For example, A person can say to B that he did not steal money from C. This is a self serving statement and is a valid admission. Does this mean that a person can make self serving statements and escape from his liability? The answer is no because such self serving admissions are governed by the provisions of Section 21, which says the following -

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; but 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) 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) 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) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Illustrations:

(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that 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 deed is forged; but 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.

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

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

(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.

(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 that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.

From the above illustrations it is clear that the general rule is that a person is not allowed to prove his own admissions. Otherwise, as observed in R vs Hardy, 1794, every man, if he were in difficulty, or in view of one, might make declarations to suit his own case and then lodge them in proof of his case. This principle, however, is subject to some important exceptions, which allow a person to prove his own statements. These are as follows -

Exception 1 - When the statement should have been relevant as dying declaration or as that of a deceased person under Section 32. Section 32 deals with the statement of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come before the court. The statement of any such person can be proved in any case or proceeding to which it is relevant whether it operates in favor of or against the person making the statement. In circumstances stated in Section 32 such a statement can be proved by the maker himself if he is still alive. In the situation described in Illustration (b), in a case between the ship-owner and the insurance company, the contents of the log book maintained by the captain would have been relevant evidence if the captain were dead under Section 32. Therefore, the captain is allowed to prove the contents of the log book even in the case involving him and the ship-owners.

Exception 2 - Statements as to bodily feeling or mind - It enables a person to prove his statements about his state of mind or body if such state of mind or body is a fact in issue or is relevant fact and if the statement was made at the time when such state of mind or body existed and further if the statement is accompanied with his conduct that makes the falsehood of the statements improbable. In Illustration (d), the statements of A that show that he refused to sell them below their value, are self serving admissions. However, it is acceptable because they reflect A's state of mind and were associated with a conduct of refusing to sell that makes their falsehood improbably.Exception 3 - The last exception allows a person to prove his own statement when it is otherwise relevant under any of the provisions relating to relevancy. There are many cases in which a statement is relevant not because it is an admission but because it establishes the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact or a fact in issue. In all such cases a party can prove his own statements.

Bibliography

Website:-- http://hanumant.com/

http://www.shareyouressays.com/

Books:-- Dr. V Nageswara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act (2nd Ed., 2016)