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. In this article, we shall study proof of admissions against persons making them.
Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an important provision which lays down the conditions and circumstances in which an admission can be proved. According to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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:—
- 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.
- 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.
- An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Illustrations
- 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 the 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. (Explanation of Section)
- 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). (Exception 1)
- A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by himself 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).
- 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. (Exception 2)
- 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 skilful person to examine the coin, as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.
Section 21 lays down as a general rule that admissions are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes them or his representative in interest. If persons are allowed to prove their statements, they will make the statement in their favour, such type of self-serving statement by party is irrelevant and cannot be regarded as evidence. The reason is that a man might bring evidence to prove the statement made by himself and take advantage from it.. An admission of the party previous to the suit is relevant under section 21.An admission made by party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to party to show that it is not true.
Exceptions to Section 21:
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: Statements as dying declarations:
Illustration (b) attached to Section 21 explains exception 1. It says A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away that is allowing the ship to drift away from its course or route. 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. The logbook is maintained by the captain himself, the entries therein are self-serving statements and would have been barred under opening part of Section 21. But the entries made in the logbook during ordinary course of business, they would have been relevant under Section 32(2) between third parties if the captain were dead.
Section 32 of the Evidence Act lays down that the statement of persons, who are dead, or who cannot be found or who otherwise cannot be called before the court, may be proved under the circumstances mentioned in the sub-clauses (1) to (8) of that section. Thus, A may prove his statements.
Note that the entries are made during ordinary course of business in a book which was also part of ordinary course of business. When captain made those entries, he was not knowing that they were self-serving. Similarly, the entries were made at a time when the controversy had not arisen (ante litam motam which means spoken before a lawsuit is brought).
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. Section 14 only provides that such statements are relevant, whereas the Section 21 (b) demands that such statement must be proved on behalf of person making them.
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. For example, where plaintiffs sought to establish their pedigree by proving that A and B were brothers, a statement to that effect made by one of the plaintiffs long before the controversy arose, were held relevant. The statement admissible under clause (3) is also relevant under sections 6 to 13 and 34 and 35 of the Evidence Act. The statement of A in a previous proceeding that B was a tenant of the property in dispute is an admission and can be used when in the later proceeding he denied that fact.
Conclusion:
Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that an admission may be used against the person who makes them or his representatives in interest but generally cannot be used by a person who makes it for his own use. As a general rule man is not allowed to give evidence in his own favour. An admission cannot be proved on behalf of the person who make it. There are three exceptions to this principle (i) Statements relevant under sec 32 (ii) Statements as to existence of state of mind or body (iii) Statements relevant otherwise than as admission.
Any statement that is favourable to the defendant in a criminal trial is considered exculpatory. Likewise, any statement favourable to the prosecution is inculpatory. Where an accused makes a statement, the exculpatory statements are admissible within the meaning of admissions under Section 21. However inculpatory statements are not admissible.