Admissions and Confessions in Evidence Act | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Admissions in the Evidence Act refer to relevant statements made in civil cases, while confessions specifically pertain to acknowledgements of guilt or substantial admissions of facts in criminal cases. According to section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions can be oral, documentary, or in electronic form. These statements infer facts in question and must meet the conditions outlined in sections 18 to 23 of the Act.
• Admissions encompass statements that attribute liability based on relevant facts. They can be formal or informal, with formal admissions occurring during legal proceedings and informal admissions happening in daily life. Formal admissions carry substantive weight and are admissible as evidence without further proof unless requested by the court.
• Informal admissions include any oral or written statements made by a party regarding the case's facts. Additionally, a person's conduct can also be considered an admission. For instance, in Mayo v Mayo, a court inferred adultery based on a woman registering her child's birth without disclosing the father's identity.

Indian Evidence Act: Sections 18, 19 & 20

Parties to the Suit (Section 18)

• Statements made by parties in a lawsuit that suggest a relevant fact are significant.
• For defendants, one defendant's admission doesn't bind the others to prevent unfair outcomes.
• Conversely, for plaintiffs with a common interest, one plaintiff's admission is binding on others.

Agents of Parties

• Actions by an agent in the ordinary course of business are treated as done by the principal.
• Explicit or implicit instructions to make a statement make it relevant.
• Note: Lawyers are not included in this section.

Statements in Representative Character

• Individuals like trustees, administrators, etc., are bound by statements made in a representative capacity.
• Personal capacity statements are not admissions, but representative capacity statements are.

Statements of Third Parties

• Persons with a direct interest in the subject matter can make relevant statements.
• Previous owners' statements regarding property are admissible but not about parties or new owners.

Section 21

• Proof of admission - an admission against a party cannot be proved by that party.
• Declarations accompanying an act can be used as evidence.
• An admission can be proved in favor of a deceased party.

Sections 22 & 22A

• Oral admissions about document content are irrelevant unless authenticity or forgery is in question.

Section 23

• Statements made without prejudice are considered irrelevant in civil cases.
• These statements are meant to encourage compromise and are confidential.
• Admissions marked without prejudice cannot be disclosed without both parties' consent.

Confession under Indian Evidence Act

• The term "confession" is not explicitly defined in the Indian Evidence Act but falls under the broader category of "admission" as per Section 17. 
• In civil cases, a relevant statement is seen as an admission, while in criminal cases, it is considered a confession.
• In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized that a confession must either explicitly admit guilt or substantially admit to all the facts.
• A statement containing a mix of confessional and exculpatory statements, where the exculpatory part leads to acquittal, is not considered a valid confession.

Types of Confessions

• Confessions can be judicial or extra-judicial. For example, in the case of Sahoo v State of UP, a confession made by the accused while speaking to himself was considered relevant.

Section 24: Irrelevant Confessions

• Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act deems certain confessions irrelevant, especially those obtained through inducement, threat, or promise.
• For a confession to be admissible, it must relate to the charge in question and offer some worldly benefit without coercion.

Confessions to Police

• Sections 25 to 30 address confessions made to the police, with Section 25 stating that confessions to a police officer are not provable or relevant.
• Section 26 reinforces Section 25, asserting that confessions made by a person in police custody are inadmissible.
• An exception exists in Section 27, allowing the admissibility of a statement if it leads to discovering a crime-related fact, even if obtained through coercion.

Voluntary Confessions

• Section 28 stipulates that a subsequent confession becomes relevant if inducement, threat, or promise is removed, making the confession voluntary.
• Under Section 29, confessions made under a promise of secrecy are admissible, focusing on the voluntariness of the confession.

Joint Accusations

• Section 30 applies when multiple individuals are jointly accused, allowing a confession implicating others to be considered as evidence against all accused parties.
• In the case of Kashmira Singh v State of MP, the court acquitted an accused due to insufficient corroboration of a confession, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence.

These guidelines within the Indian Evidence Act aim to ensure fair and just legal proceedings by regulating the admissibility of confessions in different contexts.

Differences between Admissions and Confessions in Evidence Act

• It is crucial to highlight some key distinctions between admissions and confessions in the context of the Evidence Act. Although the definition of admission encompasses confessions, admissions constitute a broader category.
• Confessions primarily relate to admissions made in criminal cases, while admissions encompass relevant statements made in civil cases. Confessions, as delineated in cases like Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor and Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, necessitate explicit acknowledgment of guilt or substantial admission of facts leading to guilt, as opposed to merely suggesting a fact or inference.
• Admissions can either favor or go against the interest of the party making them, as outlined in Sections 21 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. In contrast, confessions invariably work against the interest of the party making them.
• Admissions can be made anywhere, including in police custody or in the presence of a person in authority, and may result from inducement. Conversely, confessions have specific relevance requirements, and these conditions may not apply in such situations.
• Confessions carry binding implications for co-accused individuals, a characteristic not shared by admissions. While a third party can make an admission, a confession is made exclusively by the person who committed the crime. Importantly, an admission is not deemed conclusive proof, whereas a confession is generally considered satisfactory evidence of the accused's guilt.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the roles of admissions and confessions in the Evidence Act are pivotal within the legal domain, especially in civil and criminal cases. Although both involve relevant statements, admissions and confessions in the Evidence Act exhibit distinctive characteristics and carry different implications.
• Admissions, with a broader scope, encompass statements made in civil cases. They can either support or go against the interests of the party making them, and they are not confined to specific locations or circumstances. The conclusiveness of admissions varies, and they can be made by the involved party or third parties.
• Conversely, confessions are specific to admissions made in criminal cases, involving an acknowledgment of guilt or substantial admission of guilt-related facts. Confessions are consistently against the interests of the confessing party and possess binding implications for co-accused individuals. They hold a higher evidentiary value and are generally considered satisfactory proof of the accused's guilt. The nuanced understanding of these distinctions is essential for the fair and just application of the Evidence Act in legal proceedings.