Introduction:
A statement might be in an oral, documentary, or even electronic form. Such statements should be suggesting something about the fact in issue or the relevant fact of a particular case. Similarly, a statement can be a self-harming statement i.e. any statement made by a person can hit back at him. Such statements are called Admission. Normally a sensible person won’t make a statement that might harm himself/herself. On rare occasions, a person might go for self-harming statements and they are generally true. Now if we consider confession, it is a term that has no explicit definition. It is an admission made in a criminal case, mainly by a person who is the accused in the particular case. Accused making a statement that can be used against him is generally an admission. But such admission can also form into a particular type of character which is called the confession, and such can attract fatal consequences.
The following part will be comprised of a basic understanding of the topics Admission and Confession. (Note: the sections may not be in a sequence, but this is done for proper understanding of the concept).
Brief on Admission
Admission is a statement, whether oral, documented, or electronic, that implies any inference as to any fact in the dispute or relevant fact and is made by any of the people and in the circumstances mentioned in Section 17.
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact admitted, whereas a previous statement used to contravene a witness is not substantive evidence and only serves to pass judgment on the witness’s authenticity.[1]
The best evidence against the maker is admission, which can be inferred from the party’s behavior. Although the maker’s implied admission is strong evidence against him, he is free to prove that it was completely inaccurate or factually incorrect.[2]
An admission must be clear and consistent for the opponent to be relieved of the burden of proof of the fact claimed to be admitted.[3]
Admissions are statements given by one party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, that the Court considers expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make under the facts and circumstances. Unless made while the party making the statement allowed holding a certain character, admissions are not statements made by parties to suits suing or being sued lawfully. (Section 18)
Statements made by persons who have any patented or financial gain interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in the persona of such persons, or persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions if they are made while the interest of the persons making the statement is still active.
Statements made by persons, as stated in section 19, whose position or burden must be proven as against any party to the suit are admissions if they would be relevant as against such persons in a suit brought by or against them, and they are made while the person making them continues to occupy such position or is subject to such legal responsibility. Yash agrees to collect rents on behalf of Kunal. Kunal sues Yash for failing to collect rent due to Kunal from Naman. Yash disputes the fact that Naman owes Kunal rent, and if Yash denies that Naman owed Kunal rent, a statement by Naman that he owed Kunal rent is an admission and a Levant fact against Yash.
As per section 20, admissions are statements made by people to whom a party to a lawsuit has specifically asked for information about a dispute. For example, whether a car sold by Yash to Kunal is of sound state, is a question. “Go ask Naman, Naman knows everything about it,” Yash tells Kunal. Naman’s statement is a declaration of fact is admission.
In judicial proceedings, admission is extremely important. The work of the court becomes easier if one party to a suit or other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case. Files a lawsuit against B, accusing that B is not the son of the last male owner’s daughter and that he (A) is the last male sapinda holder. B submits a document in which A acknowledges that B is the last male holder’s daughter’s son. This document is not only admissible in court, but it is also a powerful and significant piece of evidence. Sections 17 to 31 have dealt with admission. Sections 24 through 30 are dedicated to confession. It should be noted that a confession is the accused’s admission of guilt in a criminal case.
Now, ‘admission’ is defined in sections 17 to 20. Section 21 specifies which party in the proceeding may use admission, i.e., when and under what specific conditions an admission made by one person be able to be proved by another, and when and under what instances it can be proved by the person who made the statement. Oral evidence is not admissible against the contents of documents under Section 22. Section 23 deals with the issue of relevancy in civil cases where an admission is made on the express condition that it will not be used in court.
Section 21 states that admissions are relevant and can be used against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; however, they cannot be used by or on behalf of the person who makes them or his representative in interest, except in the certain circumstances; when admission is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be significant between the third parties under section 32, it may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, or, when an admission comprised of a statement of the existence of any relevant or in issue state of mind or body, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct making its falsity implausible, it may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, or, if it is relevant other than as an admission, admission may be asserted by or on behalf of the person who made it.
There are different exceptions which are explained with the help of example and are as follows:-
- Kunal and Yash were debating over a fake document. Kunal declares it to be original, while Yash declares it to be fake. Kunal can prove that the document is original by proving a statement by Yash, and Yash can prove that the document is fake by proving a statement by Kunal; however, Kunal cannot prove that the document is original by proving a statement by himself, and Yash cannot prove that the document is fake by proving a statement by himself.
- Kunal, the driver of the bus, is charged with dumping a girl. Evidence is presented to show that the bus was diverted from its original route. Kunal produces a book kept in the ordinary course of his business, containing observations allegedly made by him from day to day and indicating that the bus was not diverted from its original route. If Kunal were alive, he could prove these statements because they would be admissible between third parties under clause (2) of section 32.
- Kunal is accused of committing a crime in Mathura. He produces a letter written by himself, dated that day in Bangalore, and bearing the same-day Bangalore postmark. The statement in the letter’s date is admissible because it would be admissible if Kunal was alive under clause (2) of section 32.
- Yash has been charged with receiving stolen goods while knowing they were stolen. He offers proof that he refused to sell them for less than they were worth. Even though these statements are admissions, Yash may be able to prove them because they explain behavior influenced by the facts presented.
- Adarsh is accused of fraudulently possessing a duplicate coin that he was aware was a duplicate. He claims that he asked a knowledgeable person to examine the coin because he was unsure whether it was original or not, and that the person did so and informed him that it was original. Here, Adarsh might prove the fact which is stated.
Like as held in the case[4], if a letter is submitted that contains no arguments in favor or against the case, but only a statement from the original defendant, the letter cannot be used as a substituted defendant when confronted with admission.
Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless and until the party attempting to prove them shows that he is obligated to express secondary evidence of the contents of the document under the rules set forth below, or unless the authenticity of the document produced is in doubt as given in section 22 and 22A of this code.
Here it has two exceptions: 1) When a person is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of some documents, he can rely on oral admission; 2) When the original is lost or in the possession of the opposing party, secondary evidence of the contents of a document can be given under section 65.
Unless the authenticity of the electronic record produced is in question, oral admissions about the contents of electronic records are irrelevant.[5]
In section 23, it is said that in civil proceedings, no admission is relevant if it is made whether on the explicit statement that it not be used as evidence, or under conditions from which the Court can infer that the parties have agreed that it should not be used as evidence.[6]
Admission “Without Prejudice”
Civil cases are covered by Section 23. It states that in civil cases, if a person admits obligation on the explicit statement that no evidence of such admission is given, or if the admission is made in such a way that the court can deduce that there was some sort of agreement that the admission would not be proven in evidence in the case, the admission is irrelevant and will not be allowed to be proven. People often make amusing statements in order to buy peace and settle disputes through compromise. People will be unable to talk about compromise and peace if such statements are allowed to be proven in court. When two people are in a dispute and one of them writes to the other offering certain terms, he may specify that if his offer is rejected, his letter will not be used against him as an admission of liability. This type of letter is referred to as “written without prejudice” and is not admissible in court. Then, on the understanding that it will not be used against the party who made it, an admission made to the opposing side is privileged. Such admissions are frequently made during negotiations between the parties or their officials to settle a claim that later becomes the subject of litigation, and the people who make the admission typically secures the privilege by specifying that the communications are without prejudice.
To prove that both the addressor and the addressee intended to claim the same privilege under section 23, it must be shown that both the addressor and the addressee intended to claim it.[7]
Letters and negotiations between their respective solicitors that are written and declared to be without prejudice are irrelevant in a dispute between the two parties. The rule in question does not apply to admissions that are not made on the condition of being without prejudice, or where a compromise agreement has been finally concluded, such as when it has been signed and executed by the parties. It’s important to remember that this section only applies in civil cases. It does not apply to criminal cases.
Admission is taken as a whole
An admission must be taken in its entirety or it will not be accepted. An admission made by a person cannot be broken up and used against him in part. It must be accepted in its entirety. However, if other evidence contradicts a portion of the admission, the remaining portion may be used.[8]
Admission based on the Law
Parties cannot bind the court to their point of view by their admission of law based on an undisputed set of facts. A party’s admission on a point of law is not binding on him. On a point of law, an erroneous admission by counsel has no legal effect and does not bind the party.
Admission as Estoppel
As stated in section 31, admissions do not constitute conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may serve as estoppels[9].
Admission is a consensual affirmation of the existence of certain facts that are in issue or appropriate to an issue in the case made by the party or someone identified with him in judgment sum. The binding nature of this type of evidence is one of its most prominent features. Admissions can be divided into two categories: (i) judicial admissions, and (ii) extra-judicial admissions.
Judicial Admission and Extra-Judicial Admission
Official admissions made by a party during the case are known as judicial admissions. Extra-judicial admissions are unofficial admissions that do not appear on the court’s record. Admissions made to the judge in the case are fully binding on the party who makes them. They are a form of proof waiver. They can serve as the foundation for the parties’ rights.
Admission vs Estoppel
| Admission | Estoppel |
| Admission is a statement made orally, in writing, or electronically that implies any inference about the fact in question or a relevant fact. | Estoppel is the rule of evidence that prohibits a person from retracting a previous statement. |
| Admission is not conclusive. Positive proof can be used to refute it. | The doctrine of estoppel is conclusive. |
| The weakest type of evidence is admission. | Estoppel is regarded as conclusive proof of superior quality. |
| In some cases, the admission of a third party binds the suit’s parties (Section 19 & 20). | Estoppel only works against the person who makes the representation and his legal retaliation. |
| In the case of admission, a party’s position doesn’t have to change as a result of the person making an admission. | The person to whom the representation is made has changed his position to his detriment in the case of estoppel. |
| Sections 17 to 23 of the Evidence Act, as well as Section 31 of the Evidence Act, lay out the rules for admission. | 6. Estoppel rules are outlined in sections 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act. |
Admission in a Book
Although statements made in a book cannot be considered irrefutable admissions, they can be used in conjunction with other evidence to determine whether the appellant’s actions amount to a waiver and/or relinquishment of rights in relation to the articles in question.
Admission as Title
Admission does not imply that you will be given a title by passing from one person to another.[10]
Brief on Confession
There are two types of statements of confessions i.e. Inculpatory and Exculpatory statements. The former statement points towards the guilt of the accused, whereas the latter statement does not point towards the guilt. It was also stated in a case[11] that if a statement contains exculpatory information, then such cannot be considered as a confession. An accused can state various facts and it becomes necessary to pluck out the statements which are inculpatory rather than those which are exculpatory. If the exculpatory portion of the confession given by the accused is proven, then the whole confession becomes inadmissible. However, if the court determines that the exculpatory part is found to be disproven or untrustworthy depending on various other proven facts, then the exculpatory part may be dismissed, and the incriminatory part is accepted.
Types of Confession
Judicial Confessions
Confessions made to a Magistrate (164 CrPC) or before any court can be considered as judicial confessions. Even an accused can directly come before the court and confess his/her guilt. This type of confession is of great/much more evidentiary value for trial. It must also be noted that all the due process as stated under Section 164 CrPC should be followed while recording such confessions. In absence of the major safeguards, such confessions lose their evidentiary value. The presence of minor irregularities such as not recording the warning statement to be made to the maker of the statement even though the warning was given orally under Section 463 CrPC is acceptable.
Extra-Judicial Confessions
Confessions made to any person other than those mentioned under Judicial confessions are considered as Extra-Judicial Confessions. It must be noted that since this aspect covers a wide range of people and without any form of due process or warnings as was in the case of judicial confessions, the court usually goes for the rule of prudence, where the court looks for corroborations along with the confession made. Generally, an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession is not going to amount by itself to result in a judgment of conviction, the necessity of corroboration to show that the confession made was under voluntary and pure circumstances is required. Even some police confessions can also be considered if falling under the category of Section 27 IEA. It should also be noted that confessions which come under the categories of Section 24-26 IEA (to be discussed later) are irrelevant and should not be considered.
Retracted Confessions
These are the type of confessions that are made and later is denied by the maker. This means, denying subsequently that the confession with the concerned opposite party is a false confession or a confession that did not exist at all. But it has been observed in a case[12] that such confessions can be taken into consideration/ relied on on if the fact that those confessions were made in a voluntary and true nature. It has also been observed in another case[13] that, retracted confessions can also rely on order to convict an accused, but generally as per the rule of prudence corroborations along with the confessions are to be produced before the court.
To get a wholesome understanding of confessions as well as what are the sections in the IEA dealing with the concept, the following can be referred to.
Section 24 deals with three terms; Inducement, Threat, and Promise (ITP). Presence of these three or any of these three components while making a confession would make it an irrelevant confession. It should be made against you and such should also be connected to the case against you. Such ITP should be coming from a person who is in a higher authority as compared to the person against whom such ITP is made. And it also the belief of the accused that if he gives such confession under such circumstances, then he/she is going to gain some benefit from it or was done to avoid any sorts of evil which are temporal.
It should be noted that the presence of reasonable doubt wrt. the ITP is enough for the court to consider such confessions as irrelevant.
To understand the basis of this section, we must refer to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, where it is stated that no accused person would be compelled in order to become a witness against himself. The section helps in restrengthening the Article and pointing out that non-voluntary confessions should not be considered as evidence.
ITP even though coming from a person of higher authority, but such confessions can be made to a person of lower authority, then also such would be considered irrelevant. But if ITP is coming from a person having no authority over the accused, and he/she confesses to a person who is having authority over him/her, then such confession won’t attract the provisions of section 24 and would be considered as relevant.
If we refer the section 163 of CrPC, we can say that no police officer can make ITP as stated under section 24. But there is no duty on them to warn an accused who is giving a confession of own free will. Whereas Section 164 (4) CrPC imposes a duty on the magistrate to give a warning to the accused who has voluntarily chosen to confess.
Now, if we refer to section 28, it states that if the ITP as mentioned under section 24 was invoked in the mind of the accused, but later the effect of such was removed totally from his/her mind. And in such a state if the accused confesses then such confession would be relevant.
Referring to section 29 we can understand how in many devious ways a confession can be obtained. Suppose someone in a drunk condition, in a promise of keeping it as secret, practicing deception, or even answering questions of which he/she is not supposed to answer and neither he/she was given a warning regarding it. But in all such situations, the confessions made would be considered as relevant if no other provisions of IEA prohibit such type of obtaining.
This can be distinguished from a doctrine named “Fruits of poisonous tree” which means that any type of suspicious way of obtaining evidence or even planting evidence or even a tainted source will not be looked into by the courts even though they might be solid evidence. Such type of Doctrine has not yet been enforced in India, but if confession is obtained through such methods, then there is the presence of suspicion on the part of the court, and they might look/ask for independent evidence.
The word “shall” as stated in section 25, totally bars the use of confessions made to a police officer. The basis of this section is to prevent police officers to obtain confessions from the accused through the use of threats and violence which might be used excessively.
Now we must know who is a police officer? We already know that every state has its police force or the state police. But there may be other types of police officers such as the customs officer who is governed by a special statute. So, to determine, that does such officers come under the category of police, we must refer to Section 173 CrPC under which it has been stated that police officer has the power of filing the charge sheet. Now, if a special officer has the same power as given under the said section, then such special statutes must explicitly mention the same. If stated, then such officers would be considered as a police officers and section 25 will be applicable. But such provisions are not present in the Customs Act which governs the Customs officer. He/she has the power to investigate or search but does not have the power to file a charge sheet. So, as stated in a case[14] such officers cannot be deemed as police officers as under section 25 and any confessions made to them would be admissible as evidence. It must also be noted that such officers are bound by Section 24 i.e. any presence of ITP while obtaining the confession would make it irrelevant.
As discussed in a case[15] that the phrase “accused of any offense” used in the section signifies that a confession made to the police even before the phase of investigation or even if the accused is not under arrest nor the custody of the police, such confession would come under section 25 itself.
It was also recommended by Malimath Committee Report[16] that Section 25 should be amended and it should allow confessions made to senior police officers or Superintendent of police or even police officers higher than such ranks to be admissible as evidence in court. These are mainly applicable to special statutes. Thus, it can be considered as an exception to Section 25.
Section 26 is a continuation of the previous section, where it has been stated that confessions made to police officers even while in police custody would not be used against him and would be inadmissible as evidence. But the section also provides an exception through which it allows confession to be admissible if even made to a third party but in the immediate presence of the Magistrate.
Now consider Section 27, where a statement given by an accused in the custody of police may not be a confession always. Such a statement might be pointing towards some type of information. It can also be called a recovery statement, because in the entire sentence there is some information that helps the police to discover something, and such can be used as evidence against him. Consider for an example, if a murder weapon gets recovered from the statements given by the accused, such can be used as evidence.
The principle behind such a section can be the Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. This implies that a statement given by an accused and also supported by the discovery of fact would be presumed to be true and on a non-voluntary basis.
There should be a presence of a cause-and-effect relationship. The cause of the police discovering the fact is the information given by the accused under a confessional statement. And the effect of it was the discovery of facts by police by going to a particular place. As stated in a case[17], it is also necessary to establish that because of the statement by the accused it was possible for the police to discover such fact and such facts should not reach the police beforehand through other sources. It is also necessary that the place where such objects were concealed should be in the knowledge of the accused, as was mentioned in a particular case[18]. Now if we consider another case[19], it was held that if an accused without making a statement, just directs the place of recovery, then such type of conduct won’t come under the application of Section 27 but rather be relevant fact under Section 8 of the IEA.
It has also been described in a case[20] where the judgment itself provided with an illustration to bring a clear understanding of the scope of section 27. Suppose an accused makes a statement that a knife was hidden near the roof. This indicates that the particular accused knows that an object was hidden in a particular place and such object is connected to the particular case in hand. So, the fact discovered is relevant under section 27. Similarly, if the accused made a statement that he will bring the knife with which he stabbed the victim, such statement won’t be coming under this category as such states do not lead to any discovery of the fact.
Referring to Section 30 it has been stated that an accused telling his/her role as well as another person role in committing a crime, then the court can consider such statement not only against the maker of the statement but also against the other person referred by the accused, such persons are called the co-accused. If seen generally, confession statements should be used against the maker itself and not against others. But this section creates a statutory exception to such general rule, and so both the maker and the other person mentioned will be liable against such statement.
But it should be noted that a confession under this section is given when the co-accused is not present with the accused, neither he/she will be scrutinized/cross-examined of such confession as this was given way before the trial. Thus, confession of co-accused is a weak type of evidence.
Rule of caution is generally undertaken by the court in situations where a criminal is turning over another criminal, then such should not be looked at unless there is some corroboration. So, at first, the court goes for independent evidence and then goes for confession as a corroboration. But an uncorroborated confession should be avoided to check the voluntary and true sense of such corroboration.
Admission vs Confession
| Admission | Confession |
| Admission can be made in both the proceedings of civil and criminal cases. | Confessions are made only in criminal cases. |
| Admissions are not always made voluntarily, so in such cases even though it might be of some evidentiary value, but the weight of such value might be diminished. | Confessions should always be made voluntary for it to be a relevant statement as already discussed in Section 24. |
| Admissions can be used in two ways i.e. against the person as well as on behalf of the person who made such a statement. | Whereas confession is one way i.e. can be used only against the person making it. A retracted confession is possible whereas a retracted admission won’t be possible. |
| Admission is of wide scope as compared to confession | Every confession would amount to an admission, but every admission won’t be a confession. |
Conclusion
When a confession falls short of admitting guilt, it can be used as proof of an exculpatory fact, or as an admission of a fact. Admission is a statement that amounts to an admission[21]. It usually relates to civil matters. Although admissions are considered substantive evidence, they do not constitute conclusive proof of the matters admitted. One of the defendants’ admissions cannot be used as evidence against the other defendants. In a lawsuit, admission equates to an inference about the defendant’s liability.
Confession is defined as the voluntary and direct admission of guilt. The accused person makes a confession, which is then used to prove his or her guilt in a court of law. A confession is regarded as conclusive evidence. A confession made by one or more accused people together can be used to convict a co-accused. Direct admission of guilt is called confession.
References:
[1] Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1947 SC 117
[2] Income Tax officer v. Mangat Ram Norata Ram, JT 2011 (7) SC 162; (2011) 6 SCALE 605
[3] Joshna Gauda v. Brundaban Gouda (2012) 5 SCC 634
[4] Salil Kumar Roy v. Badu Den Bhansali, AIR 1999 Cal 270
[5] Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II-3 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000)
[6] That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as exempting any barrister, pleader, attorney, or vakil from testifying in any matter for which he may be compelled to testify under section 126.
[7] Lucknow Improvement Trust v. P.L. Jaitly, AIR 1930 Oudh 105
[8] Shiv Ram v. Shiv Charan, AIR 1964 Raj 126
[9] The principle that prohibits a person from proving something contrary to what is inferred by that person’s past decision or statement, or by a past empirical judicial determination.
[10] Ambika Prasad v. Ram Ekbal Rai, AIR 1966 SC 605
[11] Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) 41 BOMLR 428
[12] KI Pavunny v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise (1997) (SC)
[13] Pyare lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963) (SC) 1963 AIR 1094
[14] Illias v. Collector of Customs (1970) AIR 1065.
[15] Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan. (1994) SCR (1) 559.
[16] The Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System: Premises, Politics and Implications for Human Rights (Pg:65)
[17] Jaffer Hussein Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra 2 SCR 332 (1970) (SC)
[18] Asar Mohammad v. State of UP AIR 2018 SC 5264
[19] Amin v. State of UP AIR 1958 All 293 (HC)
[20] Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor UKPC 52 (1946)
[21] under Section 17 of the Evidence Act
0 Comments