An admission is a statement of fact which waves or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. It is a voluntary acknowledgement made by the party or somebody identified with him in legal interest. The Supreme Court observed that admissions are very weak kind of evidence and the court may reject them if it is not satisfied from other circumstances that they are untrue.
An admission may be a judicial admission or an informal / casual / evidentiary admission. Judicial Admissions under Section 58 have higher evidentiary value. According to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if parties to a proceeding or their agents agree to admit a fact at the hearing or which they agree to admit by writing before the hearing, or which by any rule of pleading in force they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings, it need not be proved by the opposite party.
Strictly speaking, the general principles concerning 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 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 case, on 2nd March, 1998 distinguishing between admission and confession the Supreme Court observed: “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. But in case of admission, the person is giving evidence himself, it is direct evidence.
Section 17, IEA: Defining “Admission”
According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
Section 17 IEA defines “Admissions” but it is not complete definition. It is complete when it is read with other provisions of the Chapter especially Ss. 18 to 20.
Essential Ingredients of Admission:
- is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form;
- is a statement which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact;
- must be made any of the persons mentioned in the Act (Ss. 18 to 20);
- is made by any person under the circumstances have been mentioned in the Act;
- must be taken as a whole;
- The law of Admissions is exceptions to the law of hearsay; and
- Admissions of facts only bind persons making them.
Example:
A, files a suit against B alleging that B is the last male owner’s daughter’s son and that he (A) is the last male owner’s sapinda. B files a document in which A admits that B to be the daughter’s son of the last male holder. That document is the admission made by the A.
Kinds of Admissions:
There as two types of admissions viz., (1) Judicial, and (2) Extra-judicial Admissions.
Judicial Admission:
The judicial or formal admission is addressed to the court and is the part of the proceeding. It is made on the record in the file of the court. It is made on the record in the file of the court. The judicial admission may be made by the party in his pleading, or by stipulation, or by statement in open court. Admission in pleadings or judicial admissions by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. A judicial admission has not been dealt with by the Evidence Act, they are subject matters of the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedures have been laid down in civil suits in Order 12, Rule 2; Order 8, Rules 3,4 and 5; Order 10, Rule 1; Order 11, Rule 8; Order 12, Rule 4 and Order 14, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
In Code of Criminal Procedure there are provisions, viz. Sections 143, 251(5), 255(2), 263(g) and 271. Although the judicial admission has not been dealt with under the Act the Supreme Court has given due weightage.
In Bishwanath Prasad v Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117 case, the Supreme Court opined that “admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the fact admitted.” Admissions as defined in Sections 17 and 20 and fulfilling requirements of Section 21 are substantive evidence, propio vigare (of or by its own force independently).
Extra-judicial Admission:
The extra-judicial or informal admission is statement of fact made by the party previously in course of life or business which is inconsistent with the facts to be established at the trial. The extrajudicial admissions are called evidential admissions. The Evidence Act only deals with this sort of admission in Sections 17 to 23.
Note:
Admissions by conduct are not included in this section. It has been dealt with under section 8 of this Act. But in some circumstances the conduct, active or passive, becomes evidence for an admission. For example, a woman went to the school for registration of her child, but she did not enter the name of the father and his profession. On asking she kept silence. Her silence may mean that she does not know the name of the father or she is not interested to disclose it. Whatever view is taken it may be an admission for illegitimacy of the child. Silence may amount to admission as if there is no reply or denial. A party may admit the truth of the matter.
In Bessela v Stern, (1877), L. R. 2 C. P. D. 265 case, where the girl said to the boy “you always promised to marry me and you did not keep your words.” The boy did not deny the allegation, but he offered her some money. The boy’s silence as to promise was held to be admission.
Relevancy of Admission:
According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions (sections 5 to 55) of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. ” The admission is relevant on the following reasons:
Admissions as waiver of proof:
If a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses with the necessity of proving the fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof. An admission, 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.
In Queen Empress v. Tribhovandas Manekchand, (1885) ILR 9 Bom 131case, the Court held that a confession which is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding may be used as an admission in a civil proceeding.
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.
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.
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.
Evidentiary Value of Admission:
According to Section 31 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they operate as estoppels under the provisions herein contained.
Admissions under Indian Evidence Act 1872 (sec 17-23) are only piece of evidence. They are not conclusive proof of the fact admitted but they operate as estoppel under sec 115-117 of the Indian Evidence Act. Admission are only the prima facie evidence against the party making the statement and shift the burden of proof.
- It constitutes only a substantive piece of evidence in the case and for that reason can be relied upon for proving the truth of the facts incorporated therein.
- It has the effect of the shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against whom it is produced with the result that it casts an imperative duty on such party to explain it. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true.
- An admission to be a competent and have the value and effect as an evidence must be clear, certain, and definite without any ambiguity, vagueness or concession. (Vathsala Manickchand v N. Ganeshen (2013) 9 SCC 152)
| Section | Description |
| 17 | Definition of Admission |
| 18 | Explains the provisions about “admission by party to proceeding or his agent, by suitor in representative character, etc. |
| 19 | Contains the provisions about admission by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit |
| 20 | Narrates about admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit |
| 21 | Explains about proof of admission against persons making them, and by or on their behalf |
| 22 | Prescribes when oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant |
| 22-A | Prescribes when oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevant |
| 23 | Explains about relevancy of admission in civil cases |
| 31 | Explains that admissions are not conclusive proof, but may estop |
Who Can Make Admission?
Sections 18 to 20 of the Act lays down the provisions relating to persons to make admissions. An admission is relevant. if it is made by
- A party to the proceeding (Civil or Criminal) (S. 18); or
- An agent authorized by such party (S. 18); or
- A Party suing or being sued in a representative character making admission while holding such character (S. 18); or
- A person who has a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest (S. 18); or
- A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest (S. 18); or
- A person whose position is it necessary to prove in a suit, if such statements would be relevant in a suit brought by or against himself (S. 19); or
- A person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute (S. 20).
Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on Their Behalf.
Section 21 deals with the proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf. This section brings forth general principles of admission that admissions made are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes the admission and his representative in interest. Admission should be clear if they are used against the person making them. What a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed be to so and until that presumption is rebutted the fact admitted should be taken to be established The person against whom admission is proved is at liberty to show it was untrue. Any self-serving statement made under this section would be considered irrelevant unless it falls under the ambit of general exception as provided
Exceptions:
- when a statement is made to a third person by a person who is no more alive.
- the state of a man’s mind and body is relevant under section 14 of the Act and statements narrating such facts indication the state of mind or body may be proved on behalf of a person narrating them.
- facts which are relevant under section 6 to 13 cannot be rendered inadmissible simply because they can be proved on behalf of the persons making them. Certain other relevant statements can also be proved by the party making it, such as, when the statement is itself a fact in issue or if it is a part of res gestae.
Conclusion:
A statement made by a person mentioned in the sec 18 of the Evidence Act and, in the circumstances, mentioned in sec 18- 30 of the evidence act, which suggest an inference about the any fact in issue or relevant fact is an admission. It can be understood as anything a party has ever communicated either in speech, writing or in any other way in reference to the party at the trial is an admission. It is a positive act of acknowledgement of a fact or is a confession. It is not mere inference which is drawn by the any other act such as silence or implied consent. It must be conscious and deliberate act
One reply on “Admissions”
very nice notes , thankyou