1|Page

Cox’s Bazar international University.

Assignment for Mid Term Examination.
Course Name: Evidence Law
Course code:2404
Topics:
Case study on Evidence confession and admission.

Submit by- submit to-

Name: Kaisar Hamid Nayan Name: MRS, JANNATUL KEYA

ID:190110200462 Lecturer

Batch :11th Department of law. (CBIU)

Department of law.
Case study on Evidence confession and admission.
2|Page

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to analysis the case study on Evidence confession and admission. A case
study is a descriptive and exploratory analysis of a person, group or event. A case study research
can be single or multiple case studies, includes quantitative evidence, relies on multiple sources
of evidence and benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions. In this paper we
can able to know about the confession and admission.
Introduction:
Ever since the terms "confession and admission" were coined for evidentiary use, courts have attempted
to draw clear distinctions between them, and all too frequently, judicial opinions have mirrored slavish
obedience to the authority of mechanical definitions. For the sake of clarity, a succinct, well-put
definition may serve a utilitarian purpose in establishing ready comprehension of a segment of human
experience, but, when detached from actual fact, and the many variables that fact situations produce, this
same definition may stifle the imagination and inhibit appreciation of practical considerations. Stock
definitions of admissions and confessions lead one to believe that the distinguishing characteristics are
sharply outlined, and if one were to accept this impression as an absolute verity, problems of admissibility
would rarely beg solution. It may be unfortunate that experience dictates otherwise, but it will readily be
seen that a workable rule of admissibility will require more than a definition for its foundation. If a person
accused of an offense (accused) makes a statement against him, it is called confession. The Term
Admission is applicable to a statement, oral or in writing made by a party on civil side. An admission may
be proved by or behalf of the person making it.

ADMISSION
Section 17 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically deals with the portions related to admission.
As per the 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 mentioned in the act.
Admissions can be either formal or informal. The formal admission is also called as judicial admission
which is made at the time of the judicial proceeding, while the informal admission is those admissions
which are made in during the normal day to day activity like in the normal course of life. Formal
admission or the judicial admissions are completely admissible by the Court of law under Section 58 of
the same act and has much higher probative value into substantive any fact. They are generally rebuttable
in nature and require no further proof to disprove the facts admitted in a court of law unless the court asks
for the same.
3|Page

ADMISSION WHEN RELEVANT (SEC 18-20)

An Admission is relevant if it is made by:

1) A party to the proceeding;
2) An agent authorized by such party.
3) A party suing or being sued in a representative character making admission while holding such
character.
4) A person who has a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the suit during the
continuance of such interest.

5) A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit
during the continuance of such interest. (Section 18)
6) A person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such statements would be relevant in a
suit brought by against himself (Section 19.)
7) A person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in
Dispute (Section 20.)

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF ADMISSION:

An admission is the best evidence against the party making the same unless it is untrue and made under
the circumstances, which does not make it binding on him. Admission by a party is substantive evidence
of the facts admitted by him. Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the
party making the admission appeared in the Witness box or not. In fact, Admission is best substantive
evidence that an opposite party can rely upon it. The evidentiary value of admission only by government
is merely relevant and not conclusive, unless the Party to whom they are made has acted upon and thus
altered his detriment.

CONFESSION:
The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference
explained under the definition of admission in section 17 of Indian evidence Act also applies to
confession in the same manner. 
4|Page

Thus, the confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal offences
and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in issue or as to
relevant facts. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission by the accused in the
criminal proceedings is a confession.
A confession may be of the different type according to the matter of the cases. Broadly confession is
differentiated into two different statuses like- when the confession by the means of statements is given
itself in the court of law then such confession will be considered as judicial confession, whereas, when the
confession by the way of statements is produced at any place other than court then such confession will
lead towards extrajudicial confession.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE:
Though it is presumed that a person will not make a false statement which can be used against
him as evidence, yet confession is considered as a weak type of evidence. Its evidentiary value is
very less since there are chances that it can be untrue due to the state of mind of accused or may
be influenced by force or under threat etc. Hence, they must be considered in collaboration with
other evidence on the record. A court must as a matter of prudence resist from convicting a
person solely on the basis of a confession.  They must be taken into account in light of the facts
and circumstances of the case.
Case review :

11 juveniles jailed in Barguna Rifat murder trial

BARGUNA, Oct 27, 2020 (BSS) – A Barguna court today sentenced eleven juvenile accused out of the
total 14 to different jail terms in the sensational Rifat Sharif murder case. i
Judge Hafizur Rahman of Barguna Children’s Court started reading out the judgement at around 1.15pm
and sentenced the accused at 2.35pm.
Of the 14 juvenile accused, the court sentenced Rashidul Hasan Rishan Foraji, Md Rakibul Hasan Rifat,
Md Abdullah Raihan, Md Oliullah Oli, Md Nayeem, and Md Tanvir Hossain to 10-year imprisonment.
The court sentenced Joy Chandra Sarker, Nazmul Hasan, Rakibul Hasnat Niyamat and Md Syed Maruf
Billah to five-year-imprisonment and Prince Mollah to three-year-imprisonment.
The court also acquitted Maruf Mallik, Ratul Sikder Joy and Ariyan Hossain Srabon from the case.
Earlier on January 8, the children court framed charges against the juvenile accused and on October 14 set
today to pronounce the judgement after examining 74 witnesses on different hearing dates. Of the 14
juvenile accused, seven had given confessional statements in the case.
5|Page

Barguna District and Sessions Judge Court on September 30 sentenced six persons, including victim’s
wife Ayesha Siddiqa Minni, to death in the sensational Rifat Sharif murder case.
The other death-row-convicts are- Rakibul Hasan alias Rifat Foraji, Al Kaium alias Rabbi Akon,
Mohaimenul Islam Sifat, Rezwan Alai Khan Hridoy alias Tiktok Hridoy and Md Hasan. They were also
fined Taka 50 thousand each.
The court also acquitted four other accused – Rafiul Islam Rabbi, Md Sagar, Kamrul Islam Saimun and
Md Musa alias Musa Bond.
The court came up with the judgement after examining 76 witnesses on 43 hearing dates.
The district and sessions judge court on January 1 framed charges against the 10 adult accused for directly
participating in the brutal murder, plotting the crime and helping the killers to escape the scene.
Victim Rifat Sharif was hacked to death in broad daylight in Barguna on June 26, 2019. Police on July 16
showed his wife Minni, who was the main witness in the case earlier, arrested for her role in the gruesome
murder.
In 2017, about eight years later, the High Court Division in the case of State v Qamrul Islam ii (popularly
known as Rajon Murder case) held that video footage is a document within the Act and is, therefore,
admissible. The court drew a parallel interpretation from the Khaleda Akhtar case. However, the principle
given in Khaleda Akhtar case is applicable only for video recorded by an analogue camcorder. Analogue
camcorders are recorded on tape or cassettes, but digital camera uses storage media such as Secure Digital
(SD) cards. The court failed to elaborate on how their interpretation would apply to the digital camcorder.

Moreover, it is noticeable that the courts have used the term ‘electronic evidence’ and ‘digital evidence’
interchangeably. This is somewhat misleading because the two terms are not synonymous. To be exact,
electronic evidence is the genus of which digital evidence is a species. Electronic evidence includes both
analogue evidence (vinyl records, audiotape, photographic film) and digital evidence (anything created or
stored in a computer). Despite this, it can be concluded that the latest view of the court, as expressed in
Rajon Murder case, is that video evidence even in digital form is admissible as it falls within the
definition of document.

Apart from judicial interpretations, electronic evidence has been made admissible in a few recently
enacted special legislations. Section 16 of the Speedy Trial Tribunal iii Act, 2002; Section 87 of the
Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006; Section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009;
Section 6 of the Pornography Control Act, 2012 and Section 58 of the Digital Security Act, 2019 provide
6|Page

for the admission of electronic evidence notwithstanding the definition provided in the Act. However,
these laws only apply to specific cases and leave everything else to the parent law.

iv
In the Biswajit murder case the court easily admitted video evidence because the case was sent to the
Speedy Trial Tribunal. Section 16 of the Speedy Trial Tribunal Act, 2002 states that videos, still
photographs, audiotape recorders, and discs have evidentiary value.8 A question can surely be asked as to
why two statutes in the same judicial system provide different evidentiary standards. For example, if the
Abrar murder case is sent to the Speedy Trial Tribunal, the court would readily accept the CCTV footage
as evidence but the same would be difficult in the ordinary criminal court.

Conclusion:
This research paper concludes that confession has higher evidentiary value in Indian evidence act ,
compared to admission law in Indian evidence act . Confession is a statement made by an accused person
which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding establish the commission of offence by
him. Whereas, an admission usually relates to civil transaction and comprises all statements amounting to
admission defined under Section 17 and made by person mentioned under Sections 18,19 and 20.
Confessions, if deliberately and voluntarily made, may be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed
whereas; admissions are never conclusive to the matters admitted, though it may act as an e stoppe l.
Confessions always go against the person making it whereas, admissions may be used on behalf of the
person making it under the exceptions provided in Section 21 of Evidence Act. Confessions made by one
or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-
accused also as mentioned in Section 30. On the other hand, admission by one of several defendants in a
suit is no evidence against others. Confession is statement written or oral which is a direct admission of
suit and Admission is a statement, oral or written, which gives inference about the liability of person
making admission.

References:
 i
Qamrul Islam v State LEX/BDHC/0019/2017.

ii
Burkhard Schafer and Stephen Mason, ‘The characteristics of electronic evidence’, in Stephen Mason and
Daniel Seng (eds), Electronic Evidence (4th edition, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for the SAS
Humanities Digital Library, School of Advanced Study, University of London 2017) 19.
iii
State v Md. Rafiqul Islam and Ors (2018) 70 DLR (HCD) 26.

iv
Chowdhury, Obaidul Huq J (2004), the Evidence Act, 4th Edition, DLR Publication