The Indian Evidence Act - 2 | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Doctrine of Res Gestae: An Exception to Hear-say Evidence

• The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is a crucial legal framework in India that outlines the rules and procedures related to evidence in court. It addresses fundamental questions such as who can be a witness, who bears the burden of proof, and what types of evidence are valid in a court of law.
• The Act is divided into three parts and eleven chapters, covering various aspects of evidence, including its relevancy and admissibility.
• Evidence, derived from the Latin term "Evidentia," refers to the clarity and proof of certain facts. Black's Law Dictionary defines evidence as the state of being clear and helping to side with one party based on clear facts.
• Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines a "Fact" " " as anything perceived by the senses or a mental condition of which a person is aware. There are two types of facts in the Act: "Fact in Issue" (the main fact in dispute) and "Relevant Facts" (facts necessary to prove the main fact).
• The Act also specifies conditions for giving evidence, such as the admissibility of documentary and oral evidence, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is defined as evidence given by someone who has not witnessed a fact directly but has heard it from another person.
• However, there are exceptions to hearsay evidence, one of which is the Doctrine of Res Gestae mentioned in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The central question of this research paper is the relevance and admissibility of the Doctrine of Res Gestae as an exception to hearsay evidence. The paper aims to explain the Doctrine of Res Gestae through a comparative study with English law, highlighting its significance and characteristics. It also discusses the concept of hearsay evidence and its exceptions, focusing on the link between hearsay evidence and the Doctrine of Res Gestae. Finally, the paper addresses the challenges that may arise during the admissibility and relevance of Res Gestae under hearsay evidence.

Doctrine of Res Gestae

• The doctrine of Res Gestae is mentioned in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). It states that facts forming part of the same transaction with the facts in issue are relevant.
• Res Gestae, derived from Latin, refers to a transaction or event and includes everything incidental to the main fact in issue.
• Facts that are closely connected and provide explanations to the main fact are considered relevant. These facts are necessary for explaining the main fact precisely.
• The admissibility of these facts is determined by their interconnection; if separated, the main fact cannot be explained properly.
• There are two interpretations of Res Gestae:
• Restrictive Interpretation (English Law): Facts should occur just before or after the main fact to prevent fabrication.
• Indian Law: Borrowed from English law and incorporated in Section 6 and Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Illustration: R vs Bedingfield

• In the case of R vs Bedingfield, a woman with a cut throat told her aunt that Bedingfield was responsible. This statement was considered relevant as it formed part of the same transaction with the fact in issue.

Halsbury’s Law: Items forming Res Gestae are admissible and relevant due to their strong connection to the main fact in issue.

Sir James Stephen’s Definition:. transaction includes facts or groups of facts that are so connected that they are perceived as one and are hardly separable from each other. It can involve physical acts or words spoken by a person in connection with the facts in issue.

• Res Gestae includes spontaneous and immediate facts where fabrication of false stories is not possible.

Various Factors Affecting Facts Held in the Same Transaction 

• Time of Incident: The law does not specify a strict time limit for what constitutes the same transaction. Some facts or actions may occur within seconds of the main fact in question, while others may take months. For example, if parties are in continuous negotiations and reach an agreement that stretches over several months, actions taken after that period may still be considered part of the same transaction. 
• Place of Incident: Similar to time, there is no fixed limitation on place. An act can be considered part of the same transaction regardless of whether it occurs in a room, a specific territory, or even another country. For instance, while a shooting may occur in one location, acts of terrorism or rebellion can span an entire country. 
• Statements by Bystanders: Bystanders are individuals who witness an event at the time and place of its occurrence, not those who arrive afterward. Statements made by bystanders are admissible or relevant if they witness the actual event and provide their accounts soon after the occurrence, in line with the time, place, and circumstances of the act. For example, in the case of Ghulam vs R, a girl who was raped made statements about the incident and the appearance of the culprits six months later. The court deemed her statements irrelevant because they did not constitute part of the same transaction, allowing her enough time to fabricate a false story, thus falling outside the definition of Res Gestae under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

Essential Conditions for Facts to be Part of Res Gestae or Same Transaction

• Description and Explanation: The facts must describe and explain the characteristics of the fact in issue or the circumstances surrounding it.
• Spontaneity: The statements made by a person should be spontaneous and immediate, not just a narrative of past events.
• Statement of Fact: The statements relevant to the fact in issue should be statements of fact, not opinion.
• Witness Testimony: The statements or actions can be from a party to the suit or any person who witnessed the event themselves.
• Bystander Statements:. statement from a bystander is not admissible or relevant unless it is shown that the bystander was present at the time, place, and circumstances of the event.

Scope of Res Gestae Doctrine

• The Res Gestae doctrine refers to facts, statements, or actions that are part of the same transaction as the main facts in issue. These are considered relevant and admissible in court.
• Initially, the scope of Res Gestae was limited to criminal cases because evidence in such matters is often not directly related to the main facts. In criminal proceedings, it is challenging to produce direct witnesses when an offence has been committed.
• However, over time, the application of Res Gestae has expanded to include matrimonial cases and child-related matters.
• In matrimonial cases, when it is difficult to produce direct evidence due to the privileged relationship between spouses, evidence, actions, or statements that form part of the same transaction can be presented as witnesses.
• Similarly, in child-related matters, where a child may lack the maturity to understand and provide direct evidence related to the main facts, incidents such as shouting, beating, or statements made during the incident can be considered valid under Res Gestae.
• For example, in the case of Uttam Singh vs State of MP, a child witnessed the sudden attack on his father by an accused. The sounds of the axe, shouting, and crying that the child heard during the incident were deemed admissible and relevant evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Res Gestae and Hearsay Evidence

• All types of documentary and oral evidence are generally admissible in court. However, hearsay evidence is not considered relevant and is thus inadmissible.
• Hearsay evidence refers to information provided by someone who was not directly present at the incident or did not hear, see, or act regarding the fact in question.
• It involves situations where a person reports an incident they heard about from someone else, without having witnessed it themselves.
• Essentially, any statement made by someone who did not witness the incident is classified as hearsay evidence.
• There are several reasons why hearsay evidence is not admissible in court:
• Lack of Personal Liability: The person making the hearsay statement does not bear personal responsibility for the facts they are relaying. This allows them to evade accountability by claiming they heard it from someone else.
• Dilution of Truth: The truth of the statement diminishes with each person it passes through, leading to potential inaccuracies.
• Risk of Fraud: Allowing hearsay evidence increases the likelihood of fraudulent statements, as individuals can make claims without accountability, citing others as sources.

Despite hearsay evidence being generally inadmissible, the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) provides certain exceptions to this rule under the doctrine of Res Gestae.

Doctrine of Res Gestae as an Exception to Hearsay Evidence

• Res gestae is considered an exception to hearsay evidence because it involves statements made by a person that are directly connected to the facts in issue or relevant facts, forming part of the same transaction.
• Unlike hearsay, which allows for the possibility of fabricating a false story, res gestae statements are so closely linked in time and context that there is no opportunity for fabrication.
• This makes res gestae a more reliable form of evidence.

Case Laws Supporting Res Gestae

• Bandela Nagaraju vs State of AP: The court held that for facts to be considered part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), they must be closely connected and not easily understood as separate facts. This supports the idea that res gestae is an exception to hearsay evidence.
• Bishna vs State of West Bengal: In this case, a person who arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident and heard eyewitness accounts was deemed to have admissible statements under Section 6 of the IEA.
• Chohotka vs State: This case established guidelines for res gestae as an exception to hearsay evidence, emphasizing the relevance of facts that are immediate, spontaneous, and necessary to explain certain issues.
• Bhaskaran vs State of Kerala: The court clarified that for facts to be admissible under res gestae, they must be both spontaneous and part of the same transaction as the fact in issue.

Other Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence under IEA 1872

• Dying Declaration: As per Section 32(1) of the IEA, statements made by a deceased person regarding their death are relevant and admissible as evidence, particularly when the circumstances of their death are in question.
• Expert Opinion: Section 45 of the IEA allows courts to seek the opinion of experts in foreign law, art, or science when forming an opinion on related matters. This is an exception to general hearsay evidence.
• Admissions: Sections 17-23 of the IEA outline that any acknowledgment made by a person, either orally or in writing, regarding the existence of certain facts that infer relevant facts or facts in issue, and are inconsistent with their claim in action, is considered an admission.
• Confessions: Confessions, as outlined in Sections 24-30 of the IEA, refer to declarations or admissions of guilt made by an accused person. While the definition of confession is not explicitly mentioned in the act, it generally involves an admission of guilt or acknowledgment of committing a specific act by the accused.

Critique and Stand of Judiciary

• The doctrine of res gestae is an exception to the hearsay rule when the facts or statements are part of the same transaction as the main fact in issue.
• These facts must be immediate and spontaneous to prevent false storytelling.
• There is no specific timeframe mentioned for verifying the honesty of a statement, as false stories can be fabricated in mere seconds.
• The difference in reaction time between deceptive and honest statements is minimal.
• Stress can impact the accuracy of statements made by victims, raising concerns about their reliability.
• The Supreme Court of India, along with courts in England and America, emphasizes the importance of spontaneity and immediacy for a fact to be admissible under section 6.
• In the case of Kameshwar vs R, it was ruled that any interval between the facts in question, however slight, could allow for the possibility of fabricating a false story, making the evidence inadmissible under section 6, though admissible under section 157.
• In the case of Bishna vs State of West Bengal, the statement of a mother witnessing her child's injury was deemed valid and admissible when she cried near the bodies of the victims.

Conclusion:

• The strength of the Res gestae doctrine under section 6 lies in its flexibility, as there is no strict criteria for admissibility.
• The Supreme Court has provided guidelines, emphasizing the concepts of 'same transaction' and 'immediate and spontaneous' actions.
• Generally, evidence that does not fit under any other section of the Evidence Act falls under section 6.
• Section 6 makes statements admissible and relevant based on their connection to the fact in issue or relevant fact.
• Courts have also ruled that the continuity of statements affects their relevance; statements made after a long gap but in continuity with the event can be valid.

Judicial Notice under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Doctrine of Judicial Notice:

• In a court of law, facts must be proven with evidence according to the procedures outlined in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• However, the doctrine of judicial notice is an exception to this rule.
• Judicial notice applies to certain facts that the court is presumed to know, and therefore, these facts do not need to be proved.
• These facts are general knowledge, well-known by everyone, and proving them would be a disservice to the court.
• Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act states that facts that are judicially noticeable do not require proof.

Rationale

Judicial Notice in Law:

• Judicial notice is a legal concept that comes from English common law and was included in the Indian Evidence Act during the colonial period by the British.
• It involves acknowledging certain facts and laws without the need for evidence because they are so well-known or established.
• For domestic laws, judges are expected to know the law or be able to find it out as part of their duties. This is crucial for the justice system.
• Judicial notice can be taken for both facts and laws.

Matters of Fact:

• Matters of fact that are subject to judicial notice are those so general that anyone would know them. For example, the existence of a country like Japan.
• If someone says, "Ron was in Japan this weekend," the court doesn't need proof of Japan's existence, just whether Ron was there.
• This process saves time and effort for the court and the parties involved.
• Judicial notice happens when the court accepts certain facts as true without needing evidence from either party.
• Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the facts that should be judicially noticed.

Judicially Noticeable Facts

• Laws in Force: The Court must be aware of all laws that are effective within the territory of India. There is no need for either party to prove the existence of these laws.
• Acts of the UK Parliament: Judicial notice is required for any public Act passed or to be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as well as local and personal Acts directed by the UK Parliament.
• Articles of War: The Court takes notice of the Articles of War for the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force as provided under The Army Act, 1950.
• Parliamentary Proceedings: The proceedings of the Parliaments of the UK and India, along with other legislatures established in India, are subject to judicial notice.
• Sovereign Documents: The accession and signed documents of the Sovereign of the UK, Great Britain, and Ireland do not need to be proved.
• Court Seals: Judicial notice is taken of seals from English Courts, Indian Courts (including Admiralty courts), notaries, and authorized persons as per the Constitution or Acts of Parliament.
• Public Office Accession: The Court takes notice of the names, titles, functions, and signatures of individuals acquiring public office on an ad hoc basis.
• Recognized Countries and Flags: The existence of any country and its flag, as recognized by the Government of India, is subject to judicial notice.
• Time Division and Cultural Festivals: Judicial notice is taken of the division of time (eras like Bengali, Hijri), geographical locations, and cultural festivals, fasts, and holidays notified in the Official Gazette.
• Government Territories: The entirety of territories under the dominion of the Government of India is recognized.
• Acts of War: Any act of war or hostilities between the Government of India and other states, organizations, or individuals is subject to judicial notice.
• Court Officers and Advocates: The names and details of Court officers, deputies, subordinate officers, assistants, and advocates appearing before the Court are recognized.
• Law of the Road: The law of the road at land (traffic rules) and sea (navigation rules) is subject to judicial notice.
• Public Knowledge: The judge is expected to know matters of public history, literature, art, or science and may refer to books and documents.
• Additional Facts: The Court may also take judicial notice of widely known facts such as the passing of eminent personalities, election dates and results, or events known by the entire nation.
• Judicial Notice Definition: Judicial notice allows well-known or authoritatively attested facts to be accepted as evidence without proof, as they cannot be reasonably doubted.
• Relevant Facts: Relevant facts admitted under judicial notice are accepted by the Court without the need for a witness, often used for obvious facts considered common sense.
• Examples of Relevant Facts: Examples include approximate times of sunrise and sunset or determining the day of the week for a specific date.

When customs are to be judicially noticed

Customs in Indian Culture and Personal Laws

• Customs play a crucial role in Indian culture, and most personal laws are based on them. 
• In the case of Ass Kaur v. Kartar Singh, the Court noted that when a custom is frequently presented to it, there is no need to prove it for every individual case. 
• The case of Jadu Lal Sahu v. Maharani Janki Koer established that a well-known custom does not require proof through evidence. 
• However, there are instances where the specifics of rituals and rites within a custom may need to be proven with evidence, as seen in the case of Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh. 

Facts admitted need not be proved

What is an Admission of Fact?

• Admission of fact is when one party agrees to a certain fact during court proceedings or in writing before the hearing. This means the fact doesn't need to be proved unless the court thinks it should be.
• When parties agree to a fact, it becomes undisputed and doesn't require evidence.

Types of Admissions:

• Express Admission: When words are used to convey the admission.
• Implied Admission: When admission is inferred from statements or conduct.

Timing of Admission:

• Admission can be made anytime from the start of the suit until its disposal.

Evidentiary Value of Admissions:

• Admissions made in pleadings have low evidentiary value.
• Supreme Court cases, such as Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly and Ahmedasaheb & ors v. Sayed Ismail, highlight the importance of admissions during proceedings.

Nature of Admissions:

• Admissions are not conclusive evidence but are strong substantive evidence unless proven wrong.
• The clarity and relevance of an admission determine its importance as evidence.

Cross-Examination and Admissions:

• During cross-examination, a person should provide reasonable explanations to clarify any ambiguities in an admission.
• This principle was established in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin.

Admissions by counsel

Counsel and Admissions in Court:

• A counsel acts as an agent for a party in court. When a counsel makes an admission, it is binding on their client, unless the admission pertains to a legal point.
• The reason for this is that an admission of fact by a party's agent serves as an estoppel later in the trial. However, a wrong admission on a legal point does not have the same effect.
• In the case of Rangappa Goundan v. Emperor, it was established that counsel can make admissions in civil cases but not in criminal cases where it could relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case.
• In criminal cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. An admission by counsel on behalf of the accused could alleviate this burden for the prosecution.
• Furthermore, in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, the Supreme Court ruled that an admission of fact by counsel is not conclusive proof and can be proven wrong.

Admission in Criminal Cases

Section 58 and Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases:

• Section 58 was not originally applicable to criminal cases. However, the High Court of Bombay in Emperor v. Bansilal Gangaram Vani extended its applicability to such cases.
• In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
• Even if the accused admits guilt, the prosecution is still required to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubts.

Conclusion:
Sections 56 to 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 give courts the authority to exempt parties from proving certain facts, aiming to promote speedy justice. These provisions rely on judicial wisdom and integrity.

• Section 56. Courts may judicially notice certain facts at their discretion, but are not obligated to do so.
• Section 57. Outlines the facts that courts are required to take into judicial notice.
• Section 58. Grants courts the power to consider judicial admissions that do not need to be proven during the trial.

The purpose of these sections is to save court time and avoid proving unnecessary facts that are commonly known.

Doctrine of Estoppel

Estoppel: Meaning and Origin:

• The term "estoppel" comes from the French word "estoupe," meaning "stopper." 
• In English law, estoppel is used to prevent someone from contradicting a fact or situation they previously acknowledged through words or actions. 

Principle of Estoppel:

• Estoppel is based on the principle "allegans contraria non est audiendus," which means that a person should not be heard when they assert contradictory facts. 
• The purpose of estoppel is to prevent fraud and ensure justice between parties by promoting honesty and good faith. 

Estoppel in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

• Sections 121 to 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) address estoppel. 
• Section 121 outlines the general rule of estoppel. 
• Sections 122 and 123 focus on specific instances of estoppel by agreement. 

Essential Elements

To apply Section 121 of the BSA, the following conditions must be met:

• Representation of Fact: One party must represent an existing fact to the other party, not just make a promise. 
• Intent for Action: The representation must be made with the intention that it will be acted upon. 
• Acceptance and Reliance: The other party must accept and rely on the factual representation, believing it to be true. 
• Action Based on Belief: There must be action resulting from this belief, meaning the representation has been acted upon. 

Types of Estoppel 

Estoppel by Matter of Record:

• This type of estoppel prevents parties from reopening and relitigating a matter that has been finally settled between them by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 
• Estoppel by record is covered under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• It is also known as estoppel by judgment. 

Estoppel by Deed:

• When a party enters into a solemn engagement by deed regarding certain facts, neither they nor anyone claiming through them is allowed to deny those facts. 
• However, estoppel does not apply if the deed is affected by fraud or illegality. 

Estoppel in Pais or by Conduct:

• Estoppel in pais, also known as estoppel by conduct or representation, can arise from a contract or outside a contract through unilateral statements, acts, or omissions that induce another party to believe and act on that belief. 

Promissory Estoppel:

• Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover on a promise made without a formal contract if they have relied on that promise to their detriment. 
• It serves as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice when one party relies on the promise of another. 

Essential of Promissory Estoppel 

Conditions for Promissory Estoppel:

• Clear and Definite Promise: There must be a clear and unequivocal promise made by the promisor. 
• Reliance by the Promisee: The Promisee must have reasonably relied on the promise. 
• Detriment: The reliance must have caused a detriment or harm to the Promisee. 
• Injustice if Not Enforced: It must be shown that it would be unjust not to enforce the promise. 

Exceptions to Estoppel under Indian Evidence Act 

No Estoppel Where Truth is Known:

• If a person is aware of the true facts, they cannot invoke the principle of estoppel. 

No Estoppel in Case of Mistake:

• Estoppel cannot be applied when both parties are under a common misapprehension until the situation is clarified. 

No Estoppel for Mere Promise:

• A simple promise to undertake something in the future does not create an estoppel. 

When Both Parties Plead Estoppel:

• If both parties present a case for estoppel, the court treats the situation as if there is no plea of estoppel from either side. 

Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Negligence by Other Party:

• Estoppel does not apply if there is fraud by the other party that the promisor could not have detected with ordinary care. 

Mere Attestation Does Not Create Estoppel:

• Attestation, which does not involve knowledge of the deed's contents, cannot create estoppel or imply consent; it can only be used for cross-examination. 

No Estoppel Against Statute or Law:

• Estoppel cannot be applied on a legal point, settled proposition of law, or to undermine the provisions of valid law. 

No Estoppel Against Sovereign Acts in Public Interest:

• Estoppel cannot be applied against the Government in the exercise of its sovereign, legislative, and executive functions. 

Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession:

As per Section 122 of the BSA, 2023, a tenant or licensee who takes possession is considered to do so under the condition that they will not challenge the title of the owner or licensor. This means they acknowledge the legitimacy of the owner's title and the fact that they would not have received possession without the owner's permission. 

• A tenant or licensee is not allowed to deny the title of their landlord or licensor. 

Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee:

Section 123 of BSA, 2023:

• Estoppel by Agreement. This section addresses further instances of estoppel by agreement. 

• Applicability. It is applicable to estoppel in respect of movable property in the following cases: 

• Acceptor of a Bill of Exchange. An acceptor of a bill of exchange is bound by the agreement. 

• Bailee. A bailee is also subject to estoppel in this context. 

• Licensee. Similarly, a licensee is included under this provision. 

Case Laws 

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2000):

• The Supreme Court clearly established the key principles for the doctrine of estoppel in this case. 

Pickard v. Sears (1837):

• This case is where the doctrine of estoppel was originally founded. 
• The Court described estoppel as a principle that prevents a person from denying what they previously stated in Court. 

Conclusion:

• The doctrine of estoppel plays a crucial role in ensuring justice and fairness in legal proceedings. By holding individuals accountable to their previous statements or actions, it prevents unfair practices and fosters equitable outcomes. This principle safeguards the integrity of legal transactions while promoting trust and reliability in contractual and relational dealings. Its proper understanding and application can greatly influence the resolution of legal disputes, making it a cornerstone of Indian law. 

Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act

Meaning of Confession

Confession Under Indian Evidence Act

• Sir James Stephen's Definition:. confession is an admission made by a person charged with a crime, indicating or suggesting that they committed the offense.
• Confession in Indian Evidence Act: The term 'confession' is not explicitly defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but it is inferred from the definition of 'admission' in Section 17. A confession involves a statement made by a person charged with a crime that implies guilt regarding a fact in issue or relevant facts.
• Nature of Confession: Confessions are considered when a statement suggests an inference to a fact in issue or relevant facts in a criminal proceeding. It is a statement made by the accused indicating guilt or suggesting reasons for guilt.
• Confession vs. Admission: Admission and confession are closely related, but a confession specifically involves an admission of guilt by the accused. Confessions are seen as upgrades of admissions.
• Legal Precedents: The concept of confession has been clarified in various legal cases:
• Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor:. confession is relevant when it relates to an offence or substantial facts constituting the offence. An admission of wrongdoing alone is not a confession.
• Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab: Confession exists when a statement admits guilt or all facts constituting the offence. Mixed statements with acquittal implications cannot be considered confessions.
• Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar: Courts can rely on parts of a confession while neglecting exculpatory portions, based on evidential sufficiency.
• Principle in Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra: Courts should ascertain facts and evidence before considering confessions to ensure justice and accurate conclusions regarding guilt.

Meaning of Admission

Admission is crucial in judicial proceedings because it simplifies the process for the court. When one party proves that the other has admitted certain facts, it reduces the need for extensive evidence and makes it easier to reach a decision. Sections 17 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically address admissions.

The term "Admission" in the Evidence Act refers to when a person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of certain facts. However, the Act does not elaborate on this term as much as it does on confessions. Section 17 defines admission as any statement, whether oral, documentary, or electronic, that has enough probative value to suggest or conclude an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

• Admissions can be formal or informal. Formal admissions, also known as judicial admissions, occur during judicial proceedings and are highly admissible in court. Informal admissions happen in everyday life and are less formal.
• Judicial admissions are rebuttable and require no further proof unless the court requests it. In the case of Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that admissions are generally true and considered the best proof for proving facts. Informal admissions, on the other hand, simply help bring facts to light through oral or written statements.
• In English law, "admission" is used in civil proceedings, while "confession" is used in criminal proceedings. However, the Indian Evidence Act does not make a significant distinction between the two terms. A confession in Indian law refers to a statement by the accused declaring guilt.
• In the case of CBI v/s V.C. Shukla, the Supreme Court explained the difference between admission and confession. Confession involves a clear acknowledgment of guilt, while admission refers to acknowledging facts without necessarily implying guilt. Admissions can be used as substantive or probative evidence, while confessions may be used as negative evidence against the accused.

Difference between Confession and Admission

Confession vs Admission

Confession:

• A confession is a statement made by a person charged with a crime, suggesting their guilt.
• Confessions are typically associated with criminal proceedings and lack a specific legal definition.
• When made voluntarily, confessions can be accepted as conclusive evidence of the facts confessed.
• Confessions are used against the person making the statement.
• Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, confessions made by multiple individuals for the same offence can be used against other accused individuals.
• A confession involves the direct admission of facts or matters related to a case, either orally or in writing.

Admission:

• An admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of certain facts in issue or relevant facts.
• Admissions are generally associated with civil proceedings, and Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admissions.
• Admissions are not conclusive and may operate as estoppels, meaning they can limit the ability to argue contrary facts.
• Admissions can be used against the person making the statement, except under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Admissions made by different parties in the same suit cannot be used as evidence against others, as they lack strong evidentiary value.
• Admissions provide conclusions about the liability of the person admitting certain facts, either orally or in writing.

Example: Sahoo v. State of U.P

• In this case, a newly wedded woman was murdered by her father-in-law, who was heard screaming, "I have finished her."
• Neighbors also testified hearing the same confession from the accused.
• The court ruled that these statements constituted a confession and should be treated as such.

Types of Confession and process of recording confession

• In criminal law, confessions play a crucial role in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person. A confession is an admission of guilt, and its admissibility in court depends on various factors, including the circumstances under which it was made and the presence of legal safeguards.
• In this article, we will explore the different types of confessions, their evidentiary value, and the legal principles governing their admissibility in court.

Types of Confessions:

• Judicial Confession:. confession made in the presence of a magistrate or in a court of law is considered a judicial confession. This type of confession carries significant evidentiary weight, as it is presumed to be voluntary and true. Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act supports the admissibility of judicial confessions, highlighting their reliability when recorded by a magistrate as per legal guidelines.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: Confessions made outside the judicial setting, such as to a private individual or in a non-official capacity, are classified as extra-judicial confessions. While these confessions do not possess the same level of evidentiary value as judicial confessions, they can still be admissible in court. The written form of an extra-judicial confession, if available, is considered strong evidence. Oral confessions may also be accepted at the court's discretion, depending on their consistency and credibility.
• Retraction of Confession:. retracted confession refers to a situation where an individual withdraws or revokes a confession made earlier. The admissibility of retracted confessions hinges on their corroboration by independent evidence. Courts may consider retracted confessions valid if they are deemed true and voluntary, but they cannot be the sole basis for conviction without supporting evidence.
• Confession by Co-Accused: In cases involving multiple accused individuals, confessions made by one co-accused can be used to implicate others. However, such confessions lack substantial evidentiary value on their own and require corroboration from other evidence. The Supreme Court has clarified that confessions by co-accused should be treated as supplementary evidence rather than standalone proof of guilt.

A confession can be broadly classified into two types: 

• Judicial Confession 

• Extrajudicial Confession 

Judicial Confession:

• A judicial confession, also known as a formal confession, refers to statements made before a magistrate or in a court of law during criminal proceedings.
• Judicial confessions are similar to a "plea of guilty" as per Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
• Confessions made against the confessing party have no evidentiary value.
• Judicial confessions should not be confused with informal confessions, as they hold different values in determining the accused's guilt.
• A confession made by the accused in the presence of a magistrate or in court is considered probative evidence of guilt.
• It is crucial to ensure that the confession is voluntary and true to prevent wrongful convictions, as outlined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

Extrajudicial Confession:

• An extrajudicial confession, also known as an informal confession, refers to statements made in the absence of a magistrate or outside the court.
• Extrajudicial confessions can be made in various forms, including prayers or self-conversations, similar to judicial confessions.
• However, like judicial confessions, extrajudicial confessions must comply with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring they are voluntary and truthful.
• Confessing guilt to a private individual, such as a friend or family member, constitutes an extrajudicial confession.
• While both judicial and extrajudicial confessions can be accepted in court, they differ in evidentiary value and probative significance.
• Extrajudicial confessions can be made to any private person, including a judicial officer in a private capacity.
• In certain cases, magistrates may be restricted from recording extrajudicial confessions under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Retracted Confession:

• A retracted confession involves withdrawing a previously voluntary confession by the same individual.
• Retracted confessions can be used against the confessor if supported by independent and corroborative evidence.
• The Supreme Court in Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan emphasized that retracted confessions hold value if deemed true and voluntary.
• However, convictions cannot solely rely on retracted confessions without corroboration.

Confession by Co-Accused:

• Confessions made by one co-accused in a joint prosecution can be used against other co-accused.
• The evidentiary value of co-accused confessions is limited, and they cannot be considered substantive evidence.
• The Supreme Court in Pancho v. State of Haryana clarified that co-accused confessions are supplementary evidence and require corroboration from other probative evidence.

Evidentiary Value of Different Types of Confessions:

• Judicial Confession: Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act gives evidentiary value to judicial confessions. These confessions, recorded in the presence of a magistrate or in court, are presumed to be true and genuine. The identity of the accused must be clear and proved in the confession for prosecution.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: Extra-judicial confessions have lower evidentiary value compared to judicial confessions. However, written confessions are considered strong evidence. Oral confessions may be admissible based on the court's discretion and satisfaction.
• Retracted Confession: Retracted confessions have circumstantial evidentiary value. The police investigate based on their findings, and the court examines evidence, witnesses, and facts. The magistrate directs retracted confessions during trials, and the accused can retract confessions made to the police. Caution is needed in making inferences from retracted evidence.
• Confession by Co-Accused: Confessions by co-accused do not hold substantial evidentiary value and cannot be considered standalone evidence. They can only corroborate conclusions drawn from other probative evidence.

When is a confession irrelevant?

Confession and relevant part of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act:

• Confession made by a person accused of an offense is considered irrelevant under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act if it is obtained through inducement, threat, or promise by a person in authority, such as the police, magistrate, or court.
• The inducement, threat, or promise must be related to the charge and offer some temporal benefit or disadvantage.
• For a confession to be deemed irrelevant, the following conditions must be met:
• Inducement, threat, or promise must be present.
• Person in authority must be involved.
• Charge in question must be relevant.
• Temporal benefit or disadvantage must be evident.
• When these conditions are satisfied, the confession is deemed irrelevant and cannot be used as evidence.

Confession to Police, Police Custody and effect of police presence

Commission of Offence:

• Section 24 to 30 of Evidence Act deals with confessions.
• Section 25. Confessions made to police officers are not admissible as evidence against the accused.
• Section 26. Confessions made to police in custody are generally inadmissible, but may be allowed if recorded in the presence of a magistrate.
• Section 27. Information received from an accused, even if obtained through a confession, can be used if it leads to the discovery of relevant facts.
• In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was clarified that Section 27 allows admission of statements made to police to aid in further fact discovery, despite the bans in Sections 25 and 26.