Updated: Dec 30, 2020
An admission is a statement (oral or documentary), made by a party (or his representative), which Suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
According to Best, admission is a species of evidence and is called self-regarding. This is of two Kinds. When the evidence given is in favor of party it is self-serving; but, when it is otherwise, it is self harming. The general rule is that self-serving evidence is not receivable; but self-harming evidence is Always considered as satisfactory. If A says 'B owes me Rs.5, 000/- this is no evidence. This is self-serving. If A says 'B, has paid and Does not owe me any debt', this is a fact self-harming and can be used by B. An admission may be judicial. It may be extra-judicial i.e., outside the court or under other circumstances.
ii) Persons to make admissions Sns.18-20:
Party: Admission may be made by the party to the Proceeding.
Agents: Admission may be made on behalf of the party by the Advocate, Vakil, Power of Attorney holder, etc. Proprietary or pecuniary interest: Partners or joint contract tors may make admissions, as they act as agents. There must be the identity in legal interest among them. Predecessor-in-title: Admissions of such persons from whom a part had derived his interests, are admissible. There must be privity between them.19 e) Persons with representative character: Karta of a Hindu Joint Family may make admissions on behalf of other coparceners.
iii) Proof of position or Liability:
Admissions may be made by persons holding some position; in such a case their position or liability Is to be proved. T is the tenant of B. B has appointed A as his agent to collect rents. B sues A' for not collecting rents. A denies any dues from T. Admission by T, that rents were due is Admissible,
Admission by referee:Admissions made by a referee who is expressly referred to by the party, are admissible. The question is whether, the horse H is sound. A says to B Ask ‘C’, he knows everything". Statements of "C" are admissible.of Rs.1, 000/ - and hence, not admissible.
v) Proof of admissions:
a) Admissions cannot be proved in favour of a party making them (self-serving evidence). But Admissions may be proved against the person who is making them. A says that a deed is forged. B says it is genuine, Statement by A that it is forged will not be allowed To be proved. But statement by A, that it was genuine, made before C, may be proved against A.
Exception:Under Sn.32: Persons who are dead or those who cannot be called as witnesses: Statements made By them are admissible. Similarly a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body is admissible.
Eg. A is charged for casting the ship away. A produces log book kept in the ordinary course of his duty And the .day to day recordings therein. These are allowed as they would be admissible if A were dead
Admissions in Civil Cases: In civil cases, admissions without prejudice are irrelevant. A sues B for Rs.1, 000/- B sends Rs.200/- without prejudice. This offer of Rs.200/- is not an Admission of the liability
i) Definition:Confession is not defined in the Evidence Act. In Pakala Narayan Swami V. R., the court said that a Confession should either admit in terms of the offence or, at any rate substantially all the facts which Constitute a crime. The reason for allowing confession is that what a man voluntarily says against his own Interests, is likely to be true. The confession should be recorded according to Sn.164 Cr.P.C.
To make a confession relevant, it must be shown That it was made by the accused That it was voluntary That it was true (accused may be convicted on this ground). Confession should not be prompted by inducement, threat or Promise from a person in authority or made to gain any advantage or to avoid any evil of a temporal nature. Confession to a police officer is not admissible (Sn.25) The confession is admissible if it is made before the Magistrate. It is not admissible if it is made by the accused while in police custody *(Sn.26) The reason for this is that a confession in police custody is untrustworthy. Further, it may have been Exerted by torture by using "swear-box" or third degree methods". (Taylor) the burden of proving that the confession is voluntary is on the prosecution. If it is not voluntary, even if it is true, it is not admissible.
i) How much of information, admissible: (Sn.27)
If the accused in police custody discloses any information and in consequence of that, the police Discover a fact, only so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact so discovered may be Proved.
Eg. A tells the police when in custody
i) That he has thrown his dagger into a well, and
ii) That it is with dagger that he has committed the murder of B. The first statement is admissible as a Fact, if the dagger is discovered on the information given by a, but the second statement is never Admissible, as it is a confession to the police.
iv) Relevancy of otherwise valid Confession Sns. 28 & 29.
If a confession is recorded after the removal of any threat, promise inducement etc., it is admissible. The court must be satisfied that the impression of threat etc., has been wholly removed. (R.V.Sherrington) and that it is voluntary. If a confession is voluntary and relevant as per the Evidence Act (Sn.24), it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under i) promise or secrecy or ii) in consequence of deception or artifice or iii) under the influence of drinks or iv) that no warning was given that he was not bound to confess.
v) Confession of Accomplice: Sn.30.
If one of the accused makes a confession affecting himself and some other person. the court may Take into consideration such a confession as against the other person, and of himself. A and B are jointly tried for murder of C. It is proved that A, confessed stating "B and I, murdered C'.The court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. Corroboration necessary to convict a person on the confession of an accomplice. In Bhuboni Sahu V. King, the Privy Council held that a confession of a co-accused does not tantamount to proof. It can be used only in support of other evidence, and cannot be the ground for conviction.
Ch. 3.4 Retracted Confession:
An accused who makes a confession under Sn. 164 Cr.P.C. May go back or withdraw his Statements. This is called retracted confession. In such a circumstance, the question will be which is to Be believed either the confession or the retracted confession. To solve this the courts have evolved' certain principles: (R.V.Babula)
i) A confession statement duly recorded by the Magistrate under Sn.164 Cr.P.C. is not to be Regarded as not voluntary, merely because there was retraction by the accused.
ii) As against the accused, the retract confession may form the basis of a conviction; but, as a rule of Prudence and caution the retraction should be looked with suspicion, 'and corroboration is necessary to Convict him.
iii) Against the co-accused, the value of retracted confession is nil, and hence substantial Corroboration is necessary, to convict the co-accused.
iv) The accused may show satisfactory evidence to establish that the confession was made out of fear, duress, police torture, inducement or promise of some person in authority. Mere retraction is of no Value. In an English case, A in 1905 confessed that he had murdered 20 years ago. He retracted in the trial. He said that after reading a story, he had fancied that he had murdered and made this confession. The court held that his confession was accurate. It rejected the retraction and convicted him (Best's law of Evidence).