The apparent contradiction between these two declarations should first be resolved.

Section 133
is a clear authorisation to the courts to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice, but since such a witness, being criminal himself, may not always be trustworthy, the
court are guided by the illustration appended to Section 114 that, if it is necessary the court
should presume that he is unreliable unless his statement are supported or verified by some
independent evidence.

Categories of Accomplices—

In order to be an accomplice, a person must participate in the commission of the same crime.
This participation may be done in various ways. The modes of taking part with a crime are
treated under the head of :-

(1) Principals in the first and second degree — A principal of the first degree is one who
actually commits the crime. A principal of the second degree is a person who is present and
assists in the perpetration of the crime. These persons are undoubtedly under all the
circumstances accomplice.

(2) Accessories before the facts — An accessory before the fact is one who counsels, incites,
connives at, encourages or procures the commission of the crime. Of these persons, those who
counsel, incite, encourage or procure the commission of the crime are certainly accomplices.
(3) Accessories after the fact — Every person is an accessory after the fact to a felony, who
knowing that a felony has been committed by another person receives, comforts or assists him in
order to escape from punishment; or rescues him from arrest, or having him in custody for the
felony, intentionally and voluntarily allows him to escape, or opposes his arrest. Three conditions
must unite to render one an accessory after the fact:

(1) the felony must be complete;

(2) the accessory must have the knowledge that the felony has been committed;

(3) the accessory must harbour or assist the principal felon.

Corroboration as Rule of Caution

Once it is determined that the person who has appeared as a witness in fact an accomplice, the
question then arises as to what value is to be attached to his evidence, namely, whether it should
be acted upon in itself or some independent verification should be thought of his statements. It
has been observed from the earliest times as a rule of caution which has now become virtually a
rule or law, that the evidence of an accomplice should stand the test of verification at least in
main points. This is known as corroboration.

The reasons why corroboration has been considered necessary are that :-
(1) he has been criminal himself, and, therefore, his testimony should not carry the same respect
as that of a law-abiding citizen.
(2) he has been faithless to his companions and may be faithless to the court because he has
motive to shift the guilt from himself to his former companions, and

(3) if he is an approver, he has been favoured by the State and is therefore, likely to favour the
state.These reasons dictate the necessity for corroboration.

Once corroboration in material particulars is found, the testimony of an accomplice can be the
basis of conviction.

The meaning and nature and extent of corroboration were explained by the court of Criminal
Appeals in R v. Baskerville : The case involved an indecent assault upon two young boys with
their consent at the residence of the accused. Thus both the boys were accomplices. The only
way to corroborate the evidence of one was to refer to the statement of the other. Should the
evidence of one accomplice be corroborated with the evidence of another accomplice. The court
held that the general principle is against it.

In Bhuboni Sahu v. The Emp., eight persons were prosecuted for a murder; four of them were
acquitted. Of the remaining, one appealed to the Privy Council. The evidence against the
appellant consisted of (a) evidence of an accomplice who had taken part in the murder and had
become an approver, (b) the confession of another accused person implicating himself and the
appellant, and © the recovery of a cloth which the deceased was wearing and a Khantibadi in
circumstances which were taken to verify the evidence of the accomplice
The appellant was acquitted by the court. The Court Observed : The combine effect of Section
133 and 114, Illustration (b) may be stated as follow:

According to the former which is a rule of law an accomplice is competent to give evidence and
according to the latter which is a rule of practice is almost always unsafe to convict upon his
testimony alone. Therefore though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an
accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the court will, as a matter of practice, not accept the
evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particular. The law may be stated in
the words as in R v. Baskerville.

There is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admission in law. But it
has been long a rule of practice at common law for the Judge to warn the jury of the danger of
convicting and in the prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and in the
discretion of the Judge, to advise them not to convict upon such evidence, but the Judge should
point out to the jury that is within their legal province to convict upon such unconfirmed
evidence.
In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, accused committed offence of
robbery and murder. All deaths, except of a child, were caused by the A1, child was killed by
A2. Raju, PW 2 actively participated and facilitated the commission of the crime. The murders
were apparently committed to wipe out all evidence of robbery and committed by the accused
persons. Accused were arrested from different places. In the identification parades they were
identified by various witnesses. After the commitment but before the commencement of the trial
Raju expressed his wish to make a confessional statement. The trial court accepted the
application. The accused Raju was tendered pardon on the condition that he shall make a full and
true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence.
High Court also accepted the reference.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that as the statement of the approver was recorded
after an unexplained prolonged delay, the same could not be made the basis for conviction of the
accused. To this it was held that, Otherwise the words of the section “at any time after
commitment of the case but before judgment is passed” are clearly indicative of the legal
position which the legislature intended. No time limit is provided for recording such a statement
and delay one of the circumstances to be keep in mind as a measure of caution for appreciating
the evidence of the accomplice. Human mind cannot be expected to be reacting in a similar
manner under different situations. Any person accused of an offence, may, at any time before the
judgment is pronounced, repent for his action and volunteer to disclose the truth in the court.
Repentance is a condition of mind differing from person to person and from situation. Court,
therefore, do not find any substance n the submissions of the learned defence counsel that as the
statement of the approver was recorded after prolonged delay, no reliance could be placed upon
it.
Learned counsel further contended that conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of
the approver is neither safe nor proper particularly in a case where extreme penalty of death is
awarded. The Court said after making reference to Bhuboni Sahu v. R. ; R v. Basherville etc.
the court said that We have minutely scrutinized the evidence of PW2 and the corroborative
evidence noticed by both that trial court as well as High Court and find no substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of PW 2 is vivid in
explanation and inspires full confidence of the court to pass the conviction on the appellants for
the offences with which they were charged. The corroborative evidence to the aforesaid
statement leave no doubt in the mind of the court regarding the involvement of the appellants in
the commission of the crime for which they have been convicted and sentenced.

Reasons for admissibility of admissions

An admission is relevant evidence. Several reasons have been suggested for receiving
admissions in evidence some of them are as follows:

1. Admissions as waiver of Proof

The section confines this effect only to formal admissions made at the time of the trial or as part
of pleadings or in reference to the litigation. Sec.58 qualifies the principle by saying in the
proviso that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise
than by such admission. Thus the Court may reject an admission either wholly or in part or may
require further proof. “Waiver of proof” therefore, cannot be an exclusive reason for the
relevancy of an admission.

2. Admissions as statement against interest

The Second suggested reason is that an admission, being a statement against the interest of the
maker, should be supposed to be true, for it is highly improbable that a person will voluntarily
make a false statement against his own interest. But this also does not squarely account for the
relevancy of admissions. For one thing Section 17 does not require that an admission should be a
statement suggest some inference as to a fact in issue or relevant to the issue, even if the
inference is in favour of the declarant. The act does not seem to require that an admission should
be self-harming statement.

3. Admissions as Evidence of Contradictory Statements

Still another reason that partly accounts for the relevancy of an admission is that there is a
contradiction between the party’s statement and his case. This kind of contradiction discredits his
case. If, for example, A sues B upon a loan. His account books show that the loan was given to
C. The statement in his accounts is an admission on his part as it contradicts his case against B.
But his is only partly true, for the principle is that a party can prove all his opponent’s statements
about the facts of the case and it is not necessary that they should be inconsistent with his case.

4. Admissions as Evidence of Truth

The last and most plausible and perhaps widely accepted reason that accounts for relevancy of
admissions is that whatever statements a party makes about the facts of the case, whether they be
for or against his interest, should be relevant as representing or reflecting the truth as against
him.

Forms of admission and to whom an admission may be made

It is generally immaterial as to whom an admission is made. It may occur in reference to the

proceedings or outside the court.

Formal or Judicial Admissions

An admission which is made as part of the proceedings so that it is recorded in the file of the
court,that is called a formal or judicial admission. “Admissions expressly made in the
proceedings prior to the trial are sometimes called formal or express admissions.
Statements made by a person in his pleadings or in his evidence in a case have also been held by
the Supreme Court to be admissions and, therefore, relevant. The case before the court was
Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad :

The question was whether certain properties belonged to the defendant and certain others were
liable to partition. The opposite party had made statement in dispositions in an earlier suit that
they belonged to the defendant. Similar admissions occurred in the written statement filed by the
plaintiff and his father in that suit.

Treating this as a relevant evidence against the plaintiff, Court remarked that Admissions are
usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained, and no acceptable ground to
extricate the appellants from the effect of their own earlier statements has been made out. The
attention of the learned Judge was drawn to section 145 of the Evidence Act which provides that
if a witness is to be contradicted by his own earlier statement, the statement must be put to him
so that he may have an opportunity to explain it and this was not done in the present case
Dealing with this argument Court said :

There is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement and a
witness who is examined and is sought to be discredited by the use of his prior statement. In the
former case in admission by a party is a substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of
Sec21; in the latter case a prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness and
does not become substantive evidence. In the former there is no necessary requirement of the
statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is evidence proprio
vigore; in the latter case the Court cannot be invited to be disbelieve a witness on the strength of
the prior contradictory statement unless it has been put to him, as required by sec 145.

The court then pointed out that this distinction was clearly made out in Bharat Singh’s Case,
Where the court disposed of a similar argument with the following observation :

Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of sections 17 and 21 of the Act,
though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that admissions
duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in
the case he made a statement contrary to these admissions. An admission is a substantive
evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not
become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of
the witness.

Referring to the distinction between the relevancy of an admission and its weight the Court
pointed out in the Bharat Singh’s Case that the “the weight to be attached to an admission made
by a party is a mater different from its use as an admissible evidence.
Informal or casual Admissions

Such admissions may occur in the ordinary course of life, or in the course of business, or in
casual or informal conversation. The admission may be in writing or oral. Written admissions
may occur in the course of correspondence , in letters, business dairies or account book or other
records. If there is a document against a party, any statement made by him about the contents of
the document is an admission against him even if the document itself is not provable on account
of want of stamp.

Admission and Hearsay

An oral admission can be proved either by the party to whom it was made or by someone who
heard it being made. To this extent the evidence of an informal admission is an evidence of
hearsay. Sec.60 requires that oral evidence must in all cases be direct, that is to say, the witness
must have personal and direct knowledge of the fact to which he testifies. If, for example, the
question is how a fire started. A person who witnessed the fire being started by an explosion can
give evidence of this fact, for he has personal knowledge of the fact. If on his way home he told
someone of the fact of explosion, that other cannot give evidence of the explosion for his
knowledge is nothing but a hearsay.

Persons whose admissions are relevant

Section 18 lays down the list of persons whose admissions constitute evidence against a party.
The effects of Sec.18,19 and 20, when put together, is that the admissions of following parties
become relevant :

1. Parties of the Suit,

2. Agents of Parties,
3. Persons occupying representative character,
4. Statement will include the statements of the following parties :

This category will include the statements of the following parties :

(a) Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interest.

(b) Persons from whom the parties derived their interest.

(c) Persons whose position is in issue or is relevant.

(d) Persons expressly referred to.

Parties to suit or proceeding 

The statement of a party in his written statement in an earlier proceeding was held to be relevant
against him in a subsequent proceeding. It seemed to the court to be evidence of telling nature
and heavily loaded against the party. Where there are more than one plaintiffs oar defendants to a
suit, the Act does not make it clear whether the statement of a party will be relevant against his
co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. On principle as well as policy the statement of a defendant should
not bind his co-defendants, for otherwise the plaintiff can defeat the case of the other defendants
through the mouth of one of them. That would be unfair to the co-defendants. So a defendant is
bound by his statement only to the extent of his own interest. An admission is the best evidence
only against the party who has made it. Even if it were relevant under one category or the other,
it appears from decision of the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M. P., that not
much weight can be attached to it against the co-parties and it cannot by itself be the basis of
legal rights or liabilities.

Agents of Parties

The statement of an agent to a party are relevant as admission against the party provided the
court regards, under the circumstances of the case, the agents to be expressly or impliedly
authorised by the party to make the statement. According to the law of agency, a statement by
agent in the ordinary course of the business of agency is an admission against his principal.
Statements in representative character
A person who sues or is sued in a representative character, any statement made by him during the
time that he holds such character is an admission against the party whose representative he is.
Representative character is occupied, for example, by trustees, receivers, the assignee of an
insolvent’s estate, executors, administrators etc.

Persons having pecuniary or proprietary Interest in subject-matter

Statement of persons who, though not parties to the proceeding, have a pecuniary or proprietary
interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, are relevant provided that the statement is made
by any such person in the character of his interest.

Predecessor-in-title
Statements made by a persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the
subject-matter of the suit are admissions provided they are made during the continuance of the
interest of the persons making the statements. A person of this kind is called a “predecessor-in-
title”. Any statement made by him about the property while he was holding the title is relevant
against the parties who acquired the title from him. This category will include statements made
by a former owner of a property and such statements will be relevant against present owners. A
statement made by any such person after he ceased to have any interest in the property in
question shall not be an admission against the present owner of the property.
Persons whose position is in issue

Sec.19 deals with statements of persons whose position is in issue, though they are not parties to
the case. The section is based upon the principle that where the right or liability of a party to a
suit depends upon the liability of a third person, any statement by that third person about his
liability is an admission against the parties.

Statements by referees

Sec.20 deals with the principle that when a party makes a reference to a third person for
information, any statement by that person about the subject-matter of the reference is an
admission against the party making the reference.

The Supreme Court in K.M. Singh v. Secretary, Association of Indian Universities. Here the
issue was whether the resignation tendered by the plaintiff was an involuntary one. He named
two officials of the respondent association that if they would take special oath at a specified
religious place and affirm that his resignation was not involuntary, he would accept the same.
When the official did so it amounted to an admission on his part and he became bound by the
same.
S. 21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf

Admission are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his
representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes
them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases :
(1)An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it when it is of such a
nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons u/s
32.
(2)An admission maybe proved by or on behalf of the person making it; when it consists of a
statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the
time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its
falsehood improbable.

(3)An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant
otherwise than as an admission.

Illustrations
(a) The question between A and B is, whether certain deed is or is not forged. A
affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged.

A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may  prove a statement by A that
the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a  Statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can
be proved a statement  by himself that the deed is forged.

(b) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away.

Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course.

A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business,  showing observations
alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, and  indicating that the ship was not taken
out of her proper course. A may prove these statements because they would be admissible
between third parties if he were dead, under Sec.32.

Who can prove admissions

The section lays down the principles as to proof of admissions. The section is based upon the
principle that an admission is evidence against the party who has made the admission and,
therefore, it can be proved against him. He himself cannot prove his own statements, “otherwise
every man, if he were in a difficulty, or in view of one, might make declarations to suit his own
case”, and then lodge them in proof of his case. The general rule is that “the statements of a
living person cannot be received unless they are against his interest.” No man should be at liberty
to make evidence for himself through his own statements. Granted this facility, every litigant
would construct a favourable case by his own statement.

The principle is, however, subject to important exceptions. In these exceptional cases a party is
permitted to prove his own statements. Some of them may be mentioned here.
1. When the statement should have been relevant as Dying Declaration or as that
of a deceased person under S. 32.

Sec. 32 deals with the statement of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come before
the court. The statement of any such person can be proved in any case or proceeding to which it
is relevant whether it operates in favour or against the person making the statement. In
circumstances stated in Sec. 32 such a statement can be proved by the maker himself if he is still
alive. The exception is thus stated in S. 21(1).

An admission may be proved by or behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature
that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under Sec.
32. Illustration (b) is on the point.

2. Statements as to bodily feeling or state of mind

The second exception is contained in S.21(2). It deals with statements as to body, bodily feeling
or state of mind. The subsection enables a person to prove his statements as to his state of body
or of mind. If, for example a person is injured and the question is whether the injury was
intentional or accidental, his statement at that time as to the way he was injured can be proved by
himself. The conditions for the admissibility of such statements are, Firstly, that the statement
should have been made at about the time when the state of mind of of body which is described
by the statement still existed. The statement should be contemporaneous with the existence of the
condition of mind or of body. This rules our chances of fabrication. A person is the least likely to
fabricate a statement when he is still reeling under the pain of the injury. And Secondly, the
statement should be accompanied by conduct which renders the falsehood of the statement
improbable.

Thus to reassure that the statement is really true, the Legislature insist that the statement should
be accompanied by such conduct as shows that the condition of mind or of body described by the
statement is really true and not feigned. The conduct of a person under real pain is different from
that of a person who is only acting as such. The accompanying conduct is a greater guarantee of
truth than the statements.

3. When otherwise relevant

The last exception is that a person may prove his own statement when it is otherwise relevant
under any of the provisions relating to relevancy. A statement may be relevant either as an
admission of relevant fact or as a proof of the existence of a fact. There are many cases in which
a statement is relevant not because it is an admission but because it establishes the existence or
non-existence of a relevant fact or a fact in issue. In all such cases a party can prove his own-
statements.
Statement when Relevant

The act provides for the relevancy of statement in several cases.

Firstly, a party may prove his own statement under S.6 if it is a part of the same transaction. The
doctrine of res gestae covers such statements.

Secondly, a statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it under Section 8 if it
accompanies or explains acts other than statements or if it influenced the conduct of a person
whose conduct is relevant.
Thirdly, a statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it under Section 14 if
the statement explains his state of mind or body or bodily feeling when any such thing is relevant
or is in issue.

Fourthly, a statement may be proved on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant under any
of the clauses of Section 32.

The Supreme Court has also laid down in some cases that where there is an admission, it is not
necessary to confront the person concerned with the previous statement. This is so because an
admission is a substantive and an independent piece of evidence.
Presumption of genuineness of electronic records

Electronic records are presumed to be true. No further evidence is necessary in proof of a fact
appearing in such record. It is only when the genuineness of the record is in question that other
evidence would be receivable. In that case, an oral account of the contents of such record would
also become receivable in evidence.

In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, to hold that the statement relating to
concealment is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 27. In that case, the question was
formulate by the court, as follows:

Let us then turn to the question whether the statement of the appellant to the effect that ‘he had
hidden them (the ornaments)’ and would point out the place’ where they were, is wholly
admissible in evidence under S.27 or only that of it is admissible where he stated that he would
point out the place but not the part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments.

In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, the above question was answered as :

If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible
under S.27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; if
any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the
Court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional
nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery
admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not.

It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words where
he had hidden them’ would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the
accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the
first place S.27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be
admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by
themselves though they may prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered are
connected with crime. i.e. In this case the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen
property. We are therefore of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant would be
admissible evidence.
In the light of this decision, we must hold that the accused must be deemed to be in exclusive
possession of the articles concealed under the earth though the spots at which they were
concealed may be accessible to public.