SEC. 17: A DM Ission D Efin Ed 15: Admissions

36 Law Guide for Judicial Service Examination
ADMISSIONS
SEC. 17: A dm ission D efined15
“A n admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference

as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by a party or any person
connected with him, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.”
According to Sec 17, an admission is a statement which suggests some inference
as to the existence o f a fact in issue or a relevant fact. An ‘admission' is a statement
o f fact which waives or dispenses with the production o f evidence by conceding
that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. If, for example, a person is sued for
the recovery o f a loan and there is an entry in his account book recording the fact
o f the loan, that is an admission on his part o f his liability or if he makes any
statement to the effect that “he does owes the money” that will also be an admission
being a direct acknowledgment o f liability.
Reasons for Admissibility o f Admissions
An admission is a relevant evidence. Several reasons have been suggested for receiving
admissions in evidence:
(i) Admissions a waiver of proof —If a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses
with the necessity o f proving that fact against him.
(ii) Admissions as statement against interest — It is highly improbable that a
person will voluntarily make a false statement against his own interest.
However, Sec. 17 does not require that a statement should be a self-
harming statement, the definition also includes self-serving statements.
(iii) Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements —Another reason for the
relevancy o f an admission is that there is a contradiction between the
party’s statement and his case. This kind o f contradiction discredits his
case.
(iv) Admissions as evidence of truth - The most widely accepted reason that
accounts for relevancy o f admission is that what a party himself admits
to be true may be presumed to be so.
15. Define admission. Who can make admission?

[U.P PCS (J) 1984/1992\ [Raj.J.S. 1999[
58. The plea of alibi Is governed by which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 12.
(b) Sec. 11.
(c) Sec. 13.
(d) Sec. 14.
59. Which of the following Is relevant and may be received In evidence?
(a) Tape recordings.
(b) Dog-tracking.
(c) DNA test.
(d) All of the above.
Law of Evidence 37
Admissions constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. This is so because an

admission, though a hearsay, is nevertheless the best evidence. What is said by a
party to the suit is not open to the objection ‘that a party is going to offer worse
evidence than the nature o f the case admits’ (the supposition on which rule o f best
evidence is founded). Thus, if A sues B on a loan, which B denies and B makes
a statem ent to C, a third person, that he had taken the loan, B’s statement is an
admission and C may give evidence of it although C was not present at the time
o f the loan and had only heard B admit the fact of the loan.
Forms o f Admissions
Every written or oral statement by a party about the facts of the case is an admission.
Admissions are broadly classified into two categories: (a) judicial or formal admissions,
and (b) extra-judicial or informal admissions. It is generally immaterial to whom an
admission is made. An admission made to a stranger is relevant.
Judicial admissions are made by a party to the proceeding of the case prior
to the trial. Such admissions, being made in the case, are fully binding on the party
who makes them. In comparison, the evidentiary admissions which are receivable
at the trial as evidence, can be shown to be wrong. Informal or casual ie. extra
judicial admissions are those which do not appear on the record o f the case, and
may occur in the ordinary course of life, or in the course of business. However,
unlike judicial admissions, they are binding on the party only partially, except in
cases where they operate as or have the effect of estoppel
Active or passive conduct may in circumstances become evidence of an admission.
Silence may amount to admission in certain situations [See illustration (g) to Sec 81.
But, silence will amount to admission only if it is natural to expect a denial or reply.
SECS. 18-20: Persons W h ose Admissions are Relevant
S ections 18, 19 and 20 makes the statements o f the following persons relevant
(i) a party to the suit or proceeding,
16. “Silence may sometimes amount to an admission”. Explain and illustrate.

[U P PCS 0 ) 1985[
O b je c tiv e QuemtioMkM
(Multiple Choice)
60. A leading case on the admissibility of tape-recorded conversation Is:
(a) R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra.
(b) Kalu Mirza v Emperor.
(c) Bhola Nath v Emperor.
(d) Badri Rai v State of Bihar.
61. Which section of the Evidence Act lay down rules regarding relevant
facts when the right or custom is in question?
(a) Sec. 12.
(b) Sec. 13.
(c) Sec. 14.
(d) Sec. 15.
(ii) an agent authorized by such party,

(iii) a party suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while
holding such character (e.g. trustees, executors, etc.),
(iv) a person who has a proprietary/ pecuniary interest in the subject m atter o f
suit during the continuance o f such interest,
(v) a person from whom the parties to suit have derived their interest in the
subject-matter o f suit during the continuance o f such interest (predecessors-
in-tide) (Sec. IS);
(vi) a person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such statement
would be relevant in a suit brought by or against himself (Sec. 19);
(vii) a person to whom a party to suit has expressly referred for inform ation in
reference to a matter in dispute (Sec. 20).
It is important to note that under Sec. 18y an admission by one o f several
defendants in a suit is no evidence against another defendant, for otherwise the
plaindff can defeat the case o f the other defendants through the m outh o f one of
them. So a defendant is bound by his statements only to the extent o f his own
interest. So is true o f the statement o f a co-plaintiff. But since every plaintiff has a
pecuniary interest in the subject matter o f suit, his statement can fall in that category.
The admissions o f an agent are admissible against the principal. Similarly, the
acknowledgment o f a debt by a partner is an admission against the firm. Likewise,
admissions o f facts made by a pleader in court, on behalf o f his client, are binding
on the client But, an admission by a pleader on a point o f law will not bind the client.
Sec. 19 deals with statements o f persons whose position is in issue, though
they are not parties to the case. The section is based on the principle that where
the right or liability o f a party to a suit depends upon the liability o f a third person,
any statement by that third person about his liability is an admission against the
parties. A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due
from C to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he
owed B rent is an admission, and is relevant fact against A, if A denies that C did
owe rent to B (.Wust.).
Sec. 20 forms an exception to the rule that admissions by strangers to a suit are
not relevant. Thus, the admissions o f a third person are also receivable in evidence
against the party who has expressly referred another to him for inform ation in
regard to disputed matter. Illust. to this section reads: The question is, whether a
62. Sec. 13 of the Evidence Act applies to

(a) public as well a s private rights.
(b) right of full ownership or falling short of ownership.
(c) corporeal or incorporeal right.
(d) all of the above.
63. Under Sec. 13, right or custom could be proved by:
(a) Opinion of the persons who knew about their existence.
(b) Judgments of the courts.
(c) Both (a) and (b).
(d) None of the above.
Law o f Evidence 39
horse sold by A to B is sound; A says to B —“Go and ask'C, C knows all about
it”. C ’s statem ent is an admission.
SEC. 21: A g a in s t w hom Adm ission May be Proved17
F ir s t part o f Sec. 21 —“Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the
person w ho m akes them, or his representatives in interest”.
Sec. 21 lays down the principle as to proof o f admissions. It is based upon
the principle th a t an admission is an evidence against the party who had made the
admission and, therefore, it can be proved only against him. N o man should be at
liberty to m ake evidence for himself through his own statements (Le. he himself
cannot prove his own statements). Granted this facility, every litigant would construct
a favourable case by his own statement. Thus, *self-favouring admissions are not
permissible.
Illustration (a) to Sec. 21 explains the main principle: The question between A and
B is, w hether 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 statem ent by A that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by
himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the
deed is forged.
A party can prove a self-serving statement only under the exceptions laid down
in Sec. 21. W here, however, a person’s self-serving statement subsequendy becomes
adverse to his interest, it may be proved against him as an admission.
Secondpart o f Sec. 21 (Exceptions to Sec. 21) —Admissions cannot be proved by, or on
behalf of, the person who makes them, except in the following three cases:
Exception 1 —“W hen it is o f such a nature that, if the person making it were dead,
it would be relevant as between third persons under Sec. 32”.
Thus, the statem ent should have been relevant as dying declaration or as that
o f a deceased person under Sec. 32. Illust. (£) to Sec. 21 is on the point. If the
17. Whether an admission can be used by the maker of the admission in his own
favour? If so, in what circumstances? [U.P. PCS (J) 199t\
O b je c tiv e Q ueatioxiM
(Multiple Choice)
64. Facts showing the existence of any state of mind or showing the
existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant under
which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 12.
(b) Sec. 13.
(c) Sec. 14.
(d) Sec. 15.
65. Under Sec. 14, the expression ‘state of mind’ Includes:
(a) Intention.
(b) Knowledge.
(c) Good faith.
question was whether a ship was lost due to negligence or otherwise and the captain
o f the ship was dead, the contents o f his personal diary would have been relevant
though they operate in his favour. Illustration (c) is also on the same point. A is
accused o f crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by him
and dated at Lahore on that day and bearing the Lahore postm ark o f that day. The
statem ent in the date o f the letter is admissible, because if A were dead, it would
be admissible under Sec. 32 (2).
Exception 2 —“W hen the admission consists o f a statement o f the existence o f any
state o f mind or body (relevant or in issue) made at or about the time when such
a state o f mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its
falsehood improbable”.
The exception enables a person to prove his statements as to his state o f body
or o f mind. If, for example, a person is injured and the question is whether the injury
was intentional or accidental, his statement as that time as to the way he was injured
can be proved by himself.
W here the question is whether a person received a stolen property with
knowledge that it was stolen. In order to prove that he did not have guilty knowledge,
he offers to prove that he refused to sell the property below its value or natural
price. His statement explains the state o f his mind and is accompanied by the
conduct o f the refusal to sell. He may thus prove his statement [Illust. {d)]. Similarly,
where a person is charged with having in possession a counterfeit coin with knowledge
that it was counterfeit. He offers to prove that he consulted a skilful person on the
m atter and he was advised that the coin was genuine. He may prove this fact [Illust.
« ]•
Exception 3 —“An admission may be proved by or on behalf o f the person making
it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission”.
This exception is intended to apply to cases in which the statement is sought
to be used in evidence otherwise than as an admission, for instance, as part o f the
res gestae, or as a statement accompanying or explaining particular conduct. Where,
for example, immediately after a road accident, a person pulled up to the injured
who then made a statement as to the cause o f the injury. This statement may be
proved by or on behalf o f the injured person, it being a part o f the transaction
which injured him (Sec. 6). Where A says to B, “You have not paid back my
money”, and B walks away in silence, A may prove his own statement as it has
influenced the conduct o f a person whose conduct is relevant (Sec. 8).
66. A Is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to

harm the reputation of B. The fact of previous publication by A respecting
B, showing ill will on A’s part towards B is relevant:
(a) Because it proves the preparation for harming A’s reputation.
(b) As it is necessary to explain fact in issue.
(c) As proving intention to harm B's reputation.
(d) As it is the effect of relevant fact.
[M.P. CJ. (Prelim.) 2002]
Law o f Evidence 41
A d m issio n s H ow Far Relevant [Secs. 22-23]
SEC. 22 : W h e n O ral Adm issions as to Contents of D ocum ents are Relevant
O r a l admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and

until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence o f the contents o f such document under Sec. 65, or unless the genuineness
o f the docum ent produced is in question.
W hen the question is whether a document is genuine or forged, oral admissions
about this fact are relevant. A document can be proved by the primary evidence
(original document) or secondary evidence (attested copies or oral account).
SEC. 22A: W h en Oral Adm issions as to Contents of Electronic Records are

R elevant
“O r a l admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant unless the
genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.*’
SEC. 23: C om m u n ication w ithout Prejudice
“I n civil cases, no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express

condition that evidence o f it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which
the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not
be given”.
Explanation —Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader
or attorney from giving in evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled
to give evidence under Sec. 126 (communication made to lawyer in furtherance of
a crime).
Sec. 23 gives effect to the maxim interest rei pubHcae ut finis htinm (it is in the
interest o f the State that there should be an end of litigation). Sec. 23 applies only
to civil cases. When a person makes an admission “without prejudice” Le. upon the
condition that the evidence of it shall not be given, it cannot be proved against him.
Objective Questions
(Multiple Choice)
67. The question Is whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his
wife. Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or
after the alleged cruelty are:
(a) Relevant facts.
(b) Irrelevant facts.
(c) Collateral facts.
(d) Admissions.
The words “without prejudice” simply mean this: “I make you an offer and if you
do not accept it, this letter is not to be used against me”. This protection or
privilege against disclosure is intended to encourage parties to setde their differences
amicably and to avoid litigation if possible.
The rule under Sec. 23 applies only if there is a dispute or negotiation with
another, or if they are written bona fide. Sec. 23 does not protect all letters merely
because they are headed with the words “without prejudice”. An admission made
to a stranger, under whatever terms as to secrecy, is not protected by law from
disclosure. When letters marked “without prejudice” are tendered in evidence, and
the other party admits them (instead o f objecting to them), the admission implied
that the other party has waived his privilege, and such letters can then be used in
a judicial proceeding.
Evidentiary Value o f Admissions
An admission does not constitute a conclusive proof o f the facts admitted (Sec. 31).
It is only a primafacie proof; thus, evidence can be given to disprove it. The admissions,
thus, constitute a weak kind o f evidence. The person against whom an admission
is proved is at liberty to show that it was mistaken or untrue. But until evidence to
the contrary is given an admission can safely be presumed to be true.
An admission is substantive evidence o f the fact admitted and the admissions
duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective o f whether the party making them
appears in the witness-box or not and whether that party made a statement contrary
to his admissions (Bharat Singh v Bhagirath AIR 1966 SC 405). Sec. 17 makes no
distinction between an admission made by a party in his pleading and other
admissions. Thus, an admission made by a person in plaint signed and verified by
him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. There is no necessary
requirement o f the statement containing the admission having to be put to the
party because it is evidence proprio vigore (of its own force). Thus, an admission in
an earlier suit is a relevant evidence against the plaintiff [Bishwanath Prasad v Dwarka
Prasad (1974) 1 SCC 78].
The admissions at best only suggest inferences. The court must examine the
statement inside out and before holding a party to his statements must see that the
statement is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive. If a party’s admission falls short
o f the totality o f the requisite evidence needed for legal proof o f a fact in issue,
such an admission would be only a truncated admission.
_______________________________________________ ^ ___________________
68. A Is tried for the murder of B by Intentionally shooting him dead. The
fact that A was In the habit of shooting at people with Intent to murder
them Is:
(a) Relevant fact.
(b) Irrelevant fact.
(c) Collateral fact.
(d) Admission.
69. Previous conviction of a person Is relevant under:
(a) Sec. 14, Explanation 1.
(b) Sec. 14, Explanation 2.
(c) Sec. 15.
^ (d) Sec. 16.
Law o f Evidence 43
CONFESSIONS
D e fin itio n 18
T h e term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act. The definition o f

‘admission’ as given in Sec. 17 becomes applicable to confession also. Thus, a
confession is a statement made by a person charged with a crime suggesting an
inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts. The inference that the
statem ent should suggest should be that he is guilty o f the crime.
C onfessions Carrying Inculpatory and Exculpatory Sta tem en ts19
The definition o f confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. A mixed-up statement which,
even though contains some confessional statement, will still lead to acquittal, is no
confession (PakaJa Narayan Swami v Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47). Thus, if the maker
does n o t incriminate him self the statement will not be a confession.
A statem ent that contains self-exculpatory matter (e.g. killing done in private
defence) which if true would negative the offence, cannot amount to a confession.
This is so because a confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and the
court is n o t com petent to accept only inculpatory part (self-incriminating) and reject
exculpatory part (self-defence) {Paivinder Knur v State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354).
The facts o f the Palvinder’s case could be noted: “Palvinder was on trial for the
m urder o f her husband; the husband’s body was recovered from a well The post
mortem could not reveal whether death was due to poisoning or what. In her statement
to the court, she said that her husband, a photographer, used to keep handy photo
developing material which is quick poison; that on the occasion he was ill and she
18. What is confession? [UP. PCS Q) 1986\ [BihsuJ.S. 199I\

19. W hat do you understand by inculpatory and exculpatory statements of
confession? What is the law relating to admissibility of such statements? Can
the court convict an accused by admitting inculpatory part and rejecting
exculpatory part of confession?
[D elhiJ.S. 1982[[UP. PCS Q) 1997\[R*j.J.S. 1999\
Objective Question*
(Multiple Choice)
70. Sec. 1 4 permits evidence of previous offences to be admitted whenever
this Is necessary to prove a particular state of mind or of body. Such
evidence Is also relevant under:
(a) Sec. 8 (as showing motive).
(b) Sec. 11 (Res gestae).
(c) Sec. 54 (evidence of bad character).
(d) Both (a) and (b).
44 Law Guide fo r Judicial Sen/ice Examination
brought him some medicine; that the phial o f medicine happened to be kept nearby
the liquid developer and the husband while going for the medicine by mistake
swallowed the developer and died; that she got afraid and with the help o f the
absconding accused packed the body in a trunk and disposed it o f into the well.”
The statement, thus, consisted o f partly guilty and partly innocent remarks.
In Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bibar (AIR 1966 SC 119) the court observed: A
confession may consist o f several parts, and may reveal not only the actual
commission o f the crime but also the motive, preparation, opportunity, provocation,
weapons used, intention, concealment o f the weapon, and the subsequent conduct
o f the accused. If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part o f it. It
is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non
confessional statement.
However, in N isbi Kant Jha v State of Bihar (1959) SCR 1033, the Court pointed
out that there was nothing wrong in relying on a part of the confessional statement
and rejecting the rest, and for this purpose, the court drew support from English
authorities. Under the English law, a confession is not rejected only because o f the
exculpatory statements [fL v Storey (1968) 52 Cr. App. R. 334]. When there is
enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part o f the appellant’s statement, the
court may rely on the inculpatory part (Keshoram v State AIR 1978 SC 1096). In
Champa Rani Mondal v State of W.B. (2000) 10 SCC 608, confessional statement that
she caused the death to ward off rape, being wholly exculpatory, was held to be not
relevant as a confession.
. . .
In a statement recorded by the Magistrate, the accused did not admit his guilt
in terms and merely went on stating the fact o f assault on the deceased by mistake.
Held that such statement could not be used against the accused as a confession
(State of Haryana v Rajinder Singh, 1996 CrLJ 1875). Where the accused confessed
that he knew about the conspiracy to commit the murder in question but did not
confess that he was a party to the crime, die statement was held to be not relevant
as a confession (Shabad Ptt/la Reddy v State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3087).
In luokemati Shah v State of W.B. (AIR 2001 SC 1760), the statement o f the
accused which showed that he joined an assembly when it had already decided to
chase the victim and finish him was regarded as a confession. The Supreme Court
observed: “The statement must be read as a whole (instead o f dissecting it into
! different sentences) and then only the court should decide whether it contains
admission o f his inculpatory involvement in the offence. If the result o f that test
is positive then the statement is confessional, otherwise not.”
71. A falsely represented to B that he was the manager of a mercantile

firm, and obtained money for the purpose of deposit from B, the fact
that A had made similar representations to C and D and obtained sums
from them, Is relevant under which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 13.
(b) Sec. 14.
(c) Sec. 15.
(d) Sec. 16.
A
Law o f Evidence 45
Forms o f C on fession
A confession may occur in any form. It may be written or oral. It is not necessary
for the relevancy o f a confession that it should be communicated to some other
person. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced in
evidence if overheard by another. So, if the accused goes around the village shouting
that he had killed his wife, this would amount to a confession. However, incriminating
statements made by a person while “talking in sleep” are not to be admitted.
It may be made to the court itself (judicial confession) or to anybody outside
the court (extra-judicial confession). While, judicial confession is a good piece o f
evidence, the extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and has to be used
with great caution.
Extra-judicial C onfession20
It is made to anybody outside the court, and it could be a direct admission o f guilt
or in the form o f repentance or in any other way. “An extra-judicial confession to
afford a piece o f reliable evidence must stand the test of reproduction o f exact
words, the reason and motive for confession and the person selected in whom
confidence is reposed” (Rahim Beg v State of UP. AIR 1973 SC 343).
Thus, the court rejected the evidence of confession by the accused to another
under-trial (Heramba Brahma v State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1595). Similarly, where
the confession sought to be proved was supposed to have been made to a witness
for the purpose o f seeking his help to save the accused from harassment, but it was
not shown how the witness was in a position to help him, the confession was
described to be unreliable (Aiakban Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC 1705). A
confession made to the Municipal Commissioner with whom the accused had no
special friendship was held to be not trustworthy.
Though extra-judicial confession by its very nature may possess some weakness,
the court can act on it if the court believes the testimony of the person about the
20. Distinguish between Judicial and Extra-judicial confession.

[U.P. PCS 0 ) [Bihar J.S. 199J\
Write a brief note on: Extra-judicial confession. [RajJ.S. 1991\
< Objective QucmHomsm

(Multiple Choice)
72. The question Is whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that It
w as posted In due course, and was not returned through the Dead
Letter Office, are relevant under which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 14.
(b) Sec. 15.
(c) Sec. 16.
(d) Sec. 17.
73. According to which section of the Evidence Act, an admission Is a
statement which suggests some Inference as to the existence of a fact
In Issue or a relevant fact?
(a) Sec. 14.
(b) Sec. 15.
(c) Sec. 16.
(d) Sec. 17.
46 Law Guide fo r Judicial Service Examination
confession. A confession o f a military sepoy to his superior’s as to how he killed

his wife and disposed off the dismembered parts o f the body substantiated by
recoveries was held to be capable o f supporting conviction for murder without
m ore [Vitiayak Shivajirao v State (1998) 2 SCC 233]. It may be noted that law does
not require that the evidence o f an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be
corroborated.
C onfessions w hen Irrelevant: Involuntary C onfessions [Secs. 2 4 -26]21
SEC. 24: C onfession caused by Inducem ent, T hreat or Prom ise
T o attract the provisions o f Sec. 24, the following facts must be established:
(a) The confession must have been made by an accused person to a person in
authority.
(b) It m ust appear to the court that the confession has been caused or obtained
by reason o f any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person
in authority.
(c) The inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge
against the accused person.
(d) The inducement, etc. must be such that it would appear to the court that
the accused, in making the confession, believed or supposed that he would,
by making it, gain any advantage or avoid any evil o f a temporal nature in
reference to the proceedings against him.
When these conditions are present, the confession is said to be not free or
/oluntary and will not be receivable in evidence. It is necessary that the above
conditions must cumulatively exist. A positive/ strict proof o f the fact that there
was any inducement, threat, etc. is not necessary. Anything from a barest suspicion
to positive evidence would be enough to discard a confession. The question has to
be considered from the point o f view o f the confessing accused as to how the
inducement, etc. proceeding from a person in authority would operate on his mind.
Where the prisoner is only told to tell the truth without exciting any hope or
fear in him, his statement cannot be regarded as being made in response to any
threat or promise. Similarly, where a constable told a prisoner that he need not say
21. When does a confession become irrelevant? [UP. PCS Q) 1988\
74. Mark the Incorrect statement:

(a) Admissions must be examined as a whole and not in parts.
(b) Admissions bind the maker in so far as it relates to facts.
(c) Admissions bind the maker in so far as it relates to facts or question of
law.
75. Which of the following statements Is correct7
(a) Admissions could be oral only.
(b) Admissions could be documentary only.
(c) Admissions could be oral or documentary.
(d) Admissions are conclusive proof of the matters admitted.
[M.P. C.J. (Prelim.) 2002)
Law o f Evidence 47
anything to criminate himself, but what he did say would be used in evidence against
hini. However, where the objectionable words being that ‘it would be better to
speak the tru th ’, held that the confession was involuntary.
In Satbir Singh v State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 263, the officer having stated to
the accused that “now that the case has been registered he should state the truth”,
held that the statem ent would generate in the accused’s mind some hope or assurance
that if he told the truth he would receive his support. In a case, the accused, a post-
office clerk, under suspicion, fell at his departmental inspector’s feet begging to be
saved if he disclosed everything, and the inspector replied that he would try his
utm ost to save him if he told the truth. The confession was held to be inadmissible,
as there was an inducement by the inspector.
W here the accused was told by the magistrate, “Tell me where the things are
and I will be favourable to you”, or “If you do not tell the truth you may get
yourself into trouble and it will be worse for you”, etc, the statements were held
to be attracted under Sec 24. However, mere moral or spiritual inducements or
exhortations will not vitiate a confession via. where the accused is told, “Be sure to
tell the tru th ”, o r “You have committed one sin, do not commit another and tell
the tru th ” [jR. v Sleeman (1853) 6 Cox CC 245J. The same is true where the accused
is taken to a temple or church and is told to tell the truth in the presence o f the
Almighty.
Inducement etc. should be in reference to charge — Where a person charged with murder,
was made to confess to a Panchayat which threatened his removal from the caste
for life, the confession was held to be relevant, for the threat had nothing to do with
the charge.
Person in authority — The inducement, threat or promise should proceed from a
person in authority, Le., one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or
prosecution o f the accused or one who is empowered to examine him viz. government
officials, magistrates, their clerks, police constables, wardens and others in custody
o f prisoners, prosecutors, attorneys, etc A purely private person/ Panchayat officer
cannot be regarded as a person in authority, even if he is able to exert some
influence upon the accused.
O b je c tiv e Q u e n U o n s
(Multiple Choice)
76. Admissions
(a) are a waiver of proof.
(b) could be self-harming as well as self-serving.
(c) constitute an exception to the hearsay rule.
(d) all are correct.
77. Admissions
(a) should be formal only.
(b) should be made to the party concerned.
(c) made to a stranger is relevant.
(d) both (a) and (b).
SEC. 25: C on fession to Police22
U n d e r Sec. 25, “no confession made to a police officer can be proved as against
an accused”. The object o f it is to prevent the practice o f oppression or torture by
the police for the purpose o f extracting confessions from accused persons \Queen
Empress v Babu L a i {1884) ILR 6 All 509]. In England, a confession made to a police
officer would be relevant evidence; if the Judge feels confident that there was no
oppression and the statement was free, fair and voluntary, he may admit it.
Sec. 25 absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession
made by him to a police officer under any circumstances whatsoever. W hether such
person is in police custody or not, whether the statement made during investigation
o r before investigation is irrelevant. A series o f conflicting suggestions as to the
rational underlying this inflexible statutory bar emerges from the decided cases:
(i) An objective and dispassionate attitude cannot confidently be expected
from police officers.
(ii) T he privilege against self-incrimination has been thought to lie at die
root o f the principle.
(iii) Im portance has been attached to the discouragement o f abuse o f
authority by the police that could erode the fundamental rights o f the
citizen. The risk is great that the police will accomplish behind their
closed doors precisely what the demands o f our legal order forbid.
A jpedal legislation may change the system o f excluding police confessions.
For example, under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act fTADA),
1987, confessional statements were not excluded from evidence on the ground that
the persons making them were in police custody (Lai Singh v State o f Gujarat AIR
2001 SC 746). Similarly, under the recent Prevention o f Terrorism Act (POTA),
2001, a confession made to a police officer is admissible in evidence.
Effect of police presence - Where the confession is being given to someone else and the
policeman is only casually present and overhears it that will not destroy the voluntary
nature o f the confession. But where that person is a secret agent o f the police deputed
22. Explain and illustrate: *No confession made to a police officer is admissible’.
[U.P. PCS (J) 1983/1987\

(a) It is necessary that to be relevant an admission must accept liability
in toto.
(b) Active or passive conduct may in circumstances become evidence
of an admission.
(c) Silence may amount to admission in certain situations.
(d) Admissions could be proved by the witness who has heard them.
79. Admission can be made by
(a) a party to the suit or proceeding.
(b) an agent authorized by a party.
(c) a party suing or sued in a representative character.
(d) all of the above.
Law o f Evidence 49
for the very purpose o f receiving a confession, it will suffer from the blemish of being
a confession to police.
In S i fa Ram v State (AIR 1966 SC 1906), the accused left a letter recording his
confession near the dead body o f the victim with the avowed object that the police
should discover it. Held that the confession is relevant, as the letter was addressed
to the police officer, but the officer was not nearby when the letter was written or
knew that it was being written.
Confessional F IR — Only that part o f a confessional First Information Report is
admissible which does not am ount to a confession or which comes under the scope
o f Sec. 27. T he non-confessional part o f the FIR can be used as evidence against
the inform ant accused as showing his conduct under Sec S.23
Who is police officer — A police officer not only includes a member o f the regular
police force, b ut also would include any person who is clothed with the powers o f
a police officer viz. a chowkidar, a village headmen, a home guard,24 etc Thus,
excise inspectors are held to be police officers, but not the custom officers or an
officer under the FERA or a member o f the Railway Protection Force It has been
held that mere power of arrest, search and investigation are not enough and the
police officers should also be empowered to file a charge sheet or lodge a report
before a Magistrate.
23. ‘A’ lodges FIR alleging that in morning, he had hacked his aunt with an axe
and the dead body was lying in the house. The dead body and blood -stained
axe were recovered therefrom by the police. ‘A* is prosecuted for murder.
There is no eye -witness or any other evidence against him. Prosecution seeks
*A’s conviction for murder on the basis of his version contained in the FIR.
Decide. [U.P. PCS (J)
24. W hether extra-judicial confession made before a home guard on duty is
admissible in evidence? [Ra/.J.S.. 1989[
Objective Questionm
(Multiple Choice)
80 . Admissions by agents are:,'
(a) Always admissible in civil proceedings.
(b) Admissible in civil proceedings only if the agent has the authority
to m ake admissions.
(c) Not admissible in criminal proceedings.
(d) Both (b) and (c).
81. Which of th e following admission Is no evidence?
(a) An admission by one of the several defendants in a suit against
a n o th er defendant.
(b) An admission by a guardian ad litem against a minor.
(c) An acknowledgment of a debt by a partner against the firm.
(d) Both (a) and (b).
SEC. 26: C onfession in Police C ustody25
U n d e r Sec. 26, “no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of
a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence o f a Magistrate, shall
be proved as against such person”. The section will come into play when the person
in police custody is in conversation with any person other than a police officer and
confesses to his guilt. The section is based on the same fear, namely, that the police
would torture the accused and force him to confess, if not to the police officer
himself, at least to some one else. Thus the confession is likely to suffer from the
blemish o f not being free and voluntary.
The word custody does not mean formal custody; it means police control even
if be exercised in a home, in an open place or in the course o f a journey and not
necessarily in the walls o f a prison (actual arrest). The immediate presence o f police
officers is not necessary, so long as the accused persons are aware that the place
where they are detained is really accessible to the police. A temporary absence o f
the policeman makes no difference.
The following confessions are, thus, held to be irrelevant
(i) A woman arrested for the murder o f a young boy was left in the
custody o f villagers while the chowkidar (watchman) who arrested her
left for the police station and she confessed in his absence (Emperor v
Jagia AIR 1938 Pat 308).
(ii) While the accused being carried on a tonga was left alone by the
policeman in the custody o f the tonga-driver and he told o f his
criminality to the tonga driver [R v Lester; ILR (1895) 20 Bom 165].
(ui) Where the accused was taken to a doctor for treatment, the policeman
standing outside at the door, the accused confessed to the doctor.
25. What is the importance of a confession made by an accused while in police

custody? [Bihar J.S. 1991\
A while in police custody makes statement of a fact. During trial, the Public
Prosecutor produces evidence of his admission. A objects to it under Sec. 26.
Decide. [ U.P. PCS (J) 19971
\Ans. An admission o f a fact not amounting to a confession is not hit by Sec. 26; only
a confession is hit by Sec. 26.]
82. Which of the following admission Is no evidence?

(a) Admission of fact made by a plaader in court, on behalf of his client.
(b) Admission on a point of law made by a pleader in court, on behalf
of his client.
Law o f Evidence 51
(iv) A confession made to a person, while in police custody, overheard by

a police officer.
(v) A confession to fellow-prisoners, while in jaiL26
However, if the confession was made when the accused was nowhere near the
precincts o f a police station or during the surveillance of the police, such confession
held not to be hit by Sec. 26. The accused made his confession to two persons of
the locality. Later, his confession was reduced to writing inside the police station on
the accused being brought there. The Supreme Court said that such extra-judicial
confession was n o t hit by Sec 26 [State of A.P. v Gangula Satya Msertby (1997) 1 SCC
272].
Immediate presence o f a Magistrate —Sec. 26 recognizes one exception. If the accused
confesses while in police custody but in the immediate presence o f a Magistrate, the
confession will be valid. The presence of a Magistrate rules out the possibility o f
torture thereby making the confession free, voluntary and reliable. The Magistrate
must be present in the same room where the confession is being recorded. A
confession made while the accused is in judicial custody or lockup will be relevant,
even if policemen are guarding the accused.
The mere fact that the accused, after having made a confession before a police
officer, subsequently says before a Magistrate that told the police officer that I
murdered B” does not render the statement admissible.
C onfession w h en R elevant [Secs. 27-29]

The following three types o f confessions are relevant and admissible:
SEC. 27: H ow Much o f Information Received from Accused May be Proved
“Vt^hen any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence o f information received

from a person accused o f any offence, in the custody o f a police officer, so much
26. A, an accused, while in police custody makes a confession to his relative B. Is

the evidence of B admissible? [Raj.J.S. 1991\
[Ans. No, the evidence is inadmissible.]
Objective QuemHoMMM
(Multiple Choice)
83 . Which section is based on the principle that where the right or liability
of a party to a suit depends upon the liability of a third person, any
statem ent by that third person about his liability is an admission against
the parties?
(a) Sec. 17.
(b) Sec. 18.
(c) Sec. 19.
(d) Sec. 20. [Delhi J.S. 2002]
of such information (whether it amounts to a confession or not) as relates distinctly

to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved*’.
Under the Evidence Act, there are two situations in which confession to
police are admitted in evidence.27 One is when the statement is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate, and the second, when the statement leads to the discovery
of a fact connected with the crime. Sec. 27 is founded on the principle that if the
confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact, it may be
presumed to be true and riot to have been extracted. Sec. 27 is a proviso or
exception to Secs. 25 and 26 of the Act.
Normally, the section is brought into operation when a person in police
custody produces from some place of concealment some object e.g. a dead body,
a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant
is accused. The ‘discovery of fact* includes the object found, the place from which
it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. However,
informltion as to the ‘past use* of the object produced is not related to its discovery.
The statements admissible under Sec. 27 are not admissible against persons
other than the maker of the statement. The discovery must be made by the police
as a result o f information given by the accused and not by any other source.
Statements made by the accused in connection with an investigation in some other
case which lead to the discovery of a fact are also relevant [State oj Rajasthan v Bhup
Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675]
The scope o f Sec. 27 is explained in Pulukuri Kottaya v Emperor (AIR 1947 PC
67). In this case, the appellants guilty o f murder made some confessions in the
police custody. The statement of one of them was: “I, Kottaya, and others beat
Sivayya and Subbaya to death. I hid the spear and my stick in the rick of my village.
I will show if you come. We did all this at the instance of P. Kottaya”. The relevant
article was produced from the place of hiding.
27. State the exception to the rule that confession by an accused in police custody
is not admissible in evidence. [U.P. PCS Q) 1986\
A is tried for the murder of B. A says to a police officer, “I have buried the
knife with which I committed the murder of B in the field of C.” He tells the
place where the knife was buried. The knife is taken out. Discuss whether the
above statement of A is admissible either as whole or in part. Refer to decided
cases. [DelhiJ.S. 1984/1991/1999[ (U.P PCS (J) 1984\
84. Admissions of a third person are also receivable In evidence under

(a) Sec. 18.
(b) Sec. 19.
(c) Sec. 20.
(d) Sec. 21.
85. The question Is, whether a horse sold by A to B Is sound; A says to B
- “Go and ask C, C knows all about It”. C's statement Is:
(a) An admission.
(b) Not an admission.
(c) A confession.
(d) A presumption.
Law of Evidence 53
The Court observed: Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will

produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” docs not lead to the discovery
of a knife. It leads to the discovery of a fact that a knife is concealed in the house
of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in
the commission of offence, the fact discovered is very relevant But if to the statement
the words “with which I stabbed A” are added, these words are inadmissible because
they do not relate to the discovery of knife in the house of the informant. The part
which relates as to Svhat he did to the object* and not *what he did with the object*, is
relevant under Sec. 27, because the latter entails a remote connection with the fact
Further, if there is no other evidence connecting the knife with the crime and the only
evidence is a statement coming under Sec. 27, then the accused must be acquitted.
Referring to the facts of the case, their Lordships held that the whole of the
statement except the passage “I hid it (spear) and my stick in the rick in the village.
I will show if you come”, is inadmissible. The above passage is admissible as it
served to connect the object discovered with the offence charged. The other portions
of the statement relates to the past history of the object produced, thus not
admissible.
In Prabhu v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1113, a statement leading to discovery
of bloodstained axe, clothes, etc. was held admissible, but a statement to the police
that such clothes belonged to him (accused) and the axe was used in the murder was
held inadmissible under Sec. 27. In another case, the accused stated to the police:
“I have buried the property stolen by me in the field. I will show it**. The admissible
part is “I have buried the property in my field. I will show it**. The inadmissible part
is “stolen by me**. The underlying principle is that any self-incriminatory statement
or whatever else said by the accused at the time of giving the information by way
of giving introduction or narrative or explanation must be rigorously excluded, as
it leads to no discovery of facts.
Place of Hiding
In Mohd. Inayatullah v State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 483), the accused, charged
with theft, stated: “I will tell the place of deposit of the three chemical drums which
I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August” The facts discovered were:
chemical drums, the place of deposit of drums, and the accused’s knowledge of
such deposit. Held that only the first part of statement, namely, “I will tell the place
Objective QuemtioxLM
(Multiple Choice)
86. An admission is an evidence against the party who had made the
admission and It can be proved only against him. Admissions cannot be
proved by, or on behalf of, the person who makes them. Which of the
following Is an exception to this general rule?
(a) Dying declaration.
(b) Statements as to his state of body or of mind.
(c) Statement sought to be used in evidence otherwise than as an
admission.
o f deposit of three chemical drums” was relevant because only this part was the
direct cause o f the fact discovered. The rest of the statement was a simple confession
(past history) which led to no discovery.
It is incorrect to say that when recovery of an incriminating article is made
from a place which is open or accessible to others it would vitiate the evidence. The
crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others but whether it was
ordinarily visible to others {State of H.P. v Jeet Singh AIR 1999 SC 1293). An article
could be concealed beneath dry leaves or tall grass on public places so as to be out
of visibility o f others in normal circumstances (State of Maharashtra v Bharat Fakira
Dhiwar AIR 2002 SC 16).
SEC. 28: Confession made After Removal of Threat, Inducement, etc.
“If such a confession as is referred to in Sec. 24 is made after the impression

caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion o f the court,
been fully removed it is relevant”.
Sec. 28 deals with the validity of confession which is made after the effect of
inducement is already over (e.g. by lapse of time). Thus, a confession, which is
rendered irrelevant under Sec. 24, may become relevant under Sec. 28.
SEC. 29: Confession Otherwise Relevant Not to become Irrelevant because

of Promise of Secrecy, etc.
If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant, merely because
it was made —
(a) under a promise of secrecy, or
(b) in consequences o f a deception practised on the accused person for the
purpose o f obtaining it, or
(c) when the accused was drunk, or
(d) in answer to questions he need not have answered, or
(e) when the accused was not warned that he was not bound to make such
confession and that evidence of it might be given against him (except in
judicial confessions, under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C.)
In criminal cases, the public interest lies in prosecuting criminals and not
compromising with them. Therefore, where an accused person is persuaded to
87. Which section of the Evidence Act has been amended by the Information
Technology Act, 2000:
(a) Sec. 22A.
(b) Sec. 46.
(c) Sec. 51.
(d) Sec. 107.
88. Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are relevant under
(a) Sec. 21.
(b) Sec. 22.
(c) Sec. 23.
(d) Sec. 24.
Law of Evidence 55
confess by assuring him o f the secrecy of his statements or that evidence of it shall
not be given against him, the confession is nevertheless relevant. Where the two
accused persons were left in a room where they thought they were all alone, but
secret tape recorders were recording their conversation, the confessions thus recorded
were held to be relevant. A confession secured by intercepting and opening a letter
has also been held to be relevant. A confession obtained by intoxicating the accused
is equally relevant.
SEC. 30: Confession of Co-Accused28
“V ^hen more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against
such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”
Explanation —“Offence” as used in this section includes the abetment of or attempt
to commit the offence.
Illustrations-, (a) A and B are joindy tried for C’s murder. It is proved that A said: “B
and I murdered C”. The court may consider the effect of the confession against B.
(b) A is on trial for C’s murder. There is evidence to show that C was
murdered by A and B, and that B said: “A and I murdered C”. This statement may
not be taken into consideration by the court against A as B is not being joindy tried.
28. W h o is s a id to b e a c o -a c c u s e d u n d e r the E v id e n ce A ct? U n d e r w h a t

c irc u m s ta n c e s a conviction can be m ade on the basis o f evidence o f an accused?
[D elh i J.S . 1984[[U.P. P C S (J) 1999]
A a n d B a re jo intly trie d for C’s m urder. It is proved th a t A said: “B a n d I
m u rd e re d C ” . C a n the c o u rt consider the effect o f this confession as a g ain st
B. [U.P. P C S (J) 1988/1992\
A a n d B a re c o -a c c u se d o f the crim e o f k idnapping a n d killing a child. A
d e n ie s h is g u ilt b u t B confesses th a t he along w ith A has com m itted the crim e.
H o w fa r th e s ta te m e n t m ad e by B is relevant against A? [U .P P C S (J) 2000\
Objective Question*
(Multiple Choice)
89. When a person makes an admission without prejudice l.e. upon the
condition that the evidence of It shall not be given, It cannot be proved
against him. This Is laid down In:
(a) Sec. 21.
(b) Sec. 22.
(c) Sec. 23.
(d) Sec. 24.
90. Sec. 23 Is not applicable to:
(a) Civil cases.
(b) Criminal cases.
(c) Certain instances under Sec. 126, Evidence Act.
W hen more than one persons are being jointly tried for one and the same
offence or offences they are called ‘co-accused’. The philosophy o f Sec. 30 is that
confession o f co-accused affords some sort o f sanction in support o f the truth o f
his confession against others and himself. However, it does not necessarily follow
that because a man has truly implicated himself, therefore his implication o f another
is also true. It is opposed to the principle o f jurisprudence to use a statement
against a person without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine the person
making the statement. This section is an exception to the rule that the confession
o f one person is entirely inadmissible against another.
Joint trial fo r the same offence — Under Sec. 30, the statement o f one accused is
admissible as against his co-accused only when they are tried joindy. Person originally
charged with accused but discharged on withdrawal o f case against him is a competent
witness and his confession cannot be used against the other accused. If the person
making the confession died and was never brought to trial, his confession is
inadmissible under Sec. 30 (it would be admissible if before his death his confession
had been put on the record).
A, B and C commit murder of D. O ut o f them only A is arrested. B and C
abscond. A makes a confession and is tried and convicted. Afterwards B and C are
arrested and sent for trial. At their trial the confession o f A cannot be taken into
consideration for the simple reason that they are not tried jointly. The confession made
at a previous trial will not be relevant.
T he expression ‘same offence’ in Sec. 30 means the identical offence and does
n o t mean offence o f the same kind. If different offences are committed in course
o f the same transaction and many persons are tried jointly for different offences (viz.
abduction and rape), the confession o f one o f such persons cannot be used against
the others. Where two persons are tried jointly, but one is charged with an offence
under Sec. 372, IPC and other under Sec. 373, IPC, a confession made by one o f
them cannot be used against the other.
Affecting himself and some other — It may be noted that the confession o f co-accused must
implicate himself as well as some other accused. The confession must implicate the
maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused (Balbir Singh v State o f Punjab
AIR 1957 SC 216). The confession must not have been made under force or fraud.
Evidentiary value —Sec. 30 does not say that the confession o f one accused will be
evidence against the other co-accused. It only says that the court may take into
consideration such confession. The confession o f co-accused is no t “evidence”, as
it is not recorded on oath, nor it is given in the presence o f the accused and nor
its truth can be tested by cross-examination. It is an evidence o f a very weak type.
91. Admissions are:

(a) Conclusive proof.
(b) May operate as estoppels.
(c) Always irrelevant.
(d) None of the above. [M.P. CJ. (Prelim.) 1999]
(a) Admissions are of the nature of original evidence.
(b) An admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and the
admissions duly proved are admissible.
(c) An admission in an earlier suit is relevant evidence against the plaintiff.
Law o f Evidence 57
T he confession o f co-accused may only be taken into consideration along

with other evidence in the case, and it cannot alone form the basis o f a conviction.
It can be used only, if necessary, to corroborate other evidence o f the record. It
can only be used to help to satisfy a court that the other evidence is true (Bhuboni
Sahu v Emperor A IR 1949 PC 527). Confession o f one co-accused cannot be used
for the purpose o f corroborating the confession o f another co-accused (State o f
T.N- v Kutty A IR 2001 SC 2778). The court can take into consideration retracted
confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused.
E videntiary Value o f C onfession
A confession is considered the best and most conclusive evidence, as no person will
make an untrue statement against his own interest It is well settled that a confession,
if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof o f guilt However, the evidentiary
value o f a confession is not very great As observed by Best, a confession may be ‘false*
due to mental aberration, mistake o f law, to escape physical or moral torture, to escape
ignominy o f a stifling enquiry, due to vanity, to endanger others by naming them as co
offenders, and so on. Therefore, confessions may not always be true.
It would be very dangerous to act on a confession put into the m outh o f the
accused by a witness and uncorroborated from any other source. It would not be
quite safe to base a conviction for murder on a confession by itself. In Sahoo v State
of U.P. (AIR 1966 SC 40), held that there is clear distinction between the admissibility
o f evidence and the weight to be attached to i t The court must apply a double test:
(1) whether the confession was perfeedy voluntary, (2) if so, whether it is true and
trustworthy. If the confession appears to be a probable catalogue o f events and
naturally fits in with the rest o f the evidence and the surrounding circumstances,
it may be relied on.
R etracted C onfessions29
When a person, having once recorded a confession which is relevant, goes back
upon it at the trial, saying either that he never confessed or that he wrongly confessed
or confessed under pressure, that is called a ‘retracted* confession.
29. Discuss fully the evidentiary value of retracted confession. Illustrate your answer.
[Delhi J.S. 1996\ [ UP. PCS (J) 1985/200O[
What do you understand by a retracted confession? [RajJ.S. 1989\
Objective QucmHomsm
(Multiple Choice)
93. Which o f the following statem en ts Is Incorrect In relation to a
confession?
(a) The definition of confession is that it must either admit the guilt in
term s or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
(b) A confession is not necessarily limited to a crime.
(c) The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act.
(d) The provisions relating to confession are laid down in Secs. 24-30.
Where an extra-judicial confession was recorded by the village assistant in the

presence o f the village administrative officer; the accused made no reference to the
confession in his statement recorded by the C.J.M. under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. and only
said that he was innocent and had not committed any offence, it was held that this
could not be called a retraction o f the confession [.Pakkirisamy v State of T.N. (1997)
8 SCC 158].
The Supreme Court has held that retraction is too insufficient a reason for
overruling a confession (State of T.N. v Kutty AIR 2001 SC 2778). A retracted
confession may form the legal basis o f a conviction if the court is satisfied that it
was true and voluntarily made. In the case o f a retracted confession, one has only
to find out whether the earlier statement which was the result o f repentance,
remorse and contrition was voluntary and true or not and it is with that object that
corroboration is sought for.
Thus, a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without a
general corroboration from independent evidence (Piyare 1m/ v State of Rajasthan
AIR 1963 SC 1094). Even if a confession is inculpatory, corroboration is necessary
if the confession is retracted. The court can take into consideration retracted
confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused.
The court upheld a conviction based on a retracted confession because it
became supported by discovery o f smuggled articles from different places o f
concealment (State v Madhukar Keshav Maity AIR 1980 SC 1224). In Shankar v State
of T.N . (1994) 4 SCC 478, conviction on the basis o f retracted confession was held
not proper when the statement was inconsistent with the medical evidence.
In a case, an accused was tried for murder. At the time o f investigation he
made a confession giving full details as to the manner in which he committed the
murder. From liim a bloodstained drawer and a banian worn by him were seized. On
the information o f the accused, a bloodstained bed-sheet was recovered. At the
trial, the accused denied to have made the confession voluntarily. The confession
was held to be voluntary, the reason for retraction untrue. O n the above finding and
also in the absence o f any other evidence, the evidence o f blood on the drawer,
banian and bed-sheet were held to corroborate the confession and his conviction
was upheld (Sarvan Singh v State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 4).
94. In which case, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing
wrong In relying on a part of the confessional statement (Inculpatory
or self-incriminating) and rejecting the rest (exculpatory part made In
self-defence)?
(a) Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab.
(b) Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor.
(c) Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar.
(d) Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar.
Law o f Evidence 59
D istin ction B e tw e e n Admission and Confession30
T h e r e are many com m on features between an admission and a confession. In both

there is the acknowledgment of the existence of a fact in issue in the case, which
jnay in circum stances be accepted by the courts as a proof o f the truth and
accordingly acted upon. But there are obvious points of distinction to a The Act
lays down different rules as to their relevancy.
(1) Confessions find place in criminal proceedings only. Admissions are generally
used in civil proceedings, yet they may also be used in criminal proceedings.
(2) Every confession is an admission, but every admission is not a confession.
T he word ‘admission’ is more comprehensive and includes a confession
also. A confession is only a species o f admission.
A confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate, substantially
all the facts which constitute the offence. While in an admission, there is a mere
acknowledgment o f a fact suggesting an inference as to a fact in Issue or a relevant fact
An admission o f a gravely/ conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a
confession, for example, an admission that the accused is the owner o f and was in
recent possession o f the knife/revolver which caused death with no explanation o f
any other m an’s possession. In V'eera Ibrahim v State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC
1167), a person being prosecuted under the Customs Act told the custom officers
that he did n o t know that the goods loaded in his truck were contraband, nor they
were loaded with his instructions. Held that the statement was not a confession, but
it did am ount to an admission o f an incriminatory fact (namely, load o f contraband
goods) and was relevant under Secs. 17 and 21.
(3) A confession is the admission of guilt and, thus, invariably runs against the
interest o f the accused. A confession should necessarily be o f inculpatory
nature. The term ‘admission’ includes every statement whether it runs in
favour o f or against the party making it. However, there is nothing in
Evidence Act which precludes an accused person from relying upon his
own confessional statements for his own purposes.
30. Distinguish admission from confession and explain their evidentiary values.
Illustrate your answer. [UP. PCS (J) 1984/1992\
Objcctixrc Questions
(Multiple Choice)
(a) A confession may occur in any form: written or oral.
(b) A confession may even consist of conversation to oneself, which
may be produced in evidence if overheard by another.
(c) A confession must be made voluntarily.
(d) An incriminating statement made by a person while talking in sleep
could be admitted.
96. Which of the following confessions Is considered as superior kind of
evidence?
(a) Confession made to a Magistrate.
(b) Confession made to a police officer.
(c) Confession made to any person outside the court.
(d) Confession made to a religious guru.
(4)An admission made to any person whatsoever is relevant whether he be a

policeman or a person in authority or whether it was the result of an inducement
or a promise. O n the other hand, the confession to a policeman or in police
custody is irrelevant Thus, the confession must be free and voluntary.
Further, a statem ent may be irrelevant as a confession but it may be relevant
as an admission. A statement not admissible as a confession may yet, for other
purposes is admissible as an admission against the person who made it.
(5) A confession always proceeds from the accused or suspect person, but in
reference to admissions, the statements o f certain persons, who are not
parties to the case, as admissions against the parties.
(6) The confession o f an accused person is relevant against all his co-accused
who are being tried with him for the same offence (Sec. 30). In the case
o f admissions, statements o f a co-plaintiff or those o f a co-defendant are
no evidence against the others.
(7) An admission is not a conclusive proof o f the fact admitted, though it may
operate as an estoppel against the party making it. A confession is considered
a satisfactory proof o f the guilt o f the accused, though as a rule o f prudence,
the courts may require corroborative evidence.
SEC. 3 1: A d m ission s N o t C onclusive Proof, but they May Estop

“A d m issio n s are not conclusive proof o f the matters admitted, but they may
operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.”
For comments, see under Secs. 23 and 115.
\\Y
^ V / , STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO
X / / CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES
SEC. 32: C ases in w hich S ta te m e n ts o f Relevant Fact by Person w ho is D ead
or C an n ot be Found, e tc . is Relevant
A statement (written or verbal) o f relevant facts made by a person (i) who is dead,
(ii) who cannot be found, (iii) who has become incapable o f giving evidence, or (iv)
whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense, is
relevant under the following circumstances:
(1) When it relates to the cause of his death.
97. A confession caused by an Inducement, threat or promise Is Irrelevant

under which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 23.
(b) Sec. 24.
(c) Sec. 26.
(d) Sec. 27.
Law o f Evidence 61
(2) W hen it is made in the course of business, such as an entry in books, or

acknowledgement of the receipt of any property, or date of a document.
(3) W hen it is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it or
w hen it would’ve exposed him to a criminal prosecution.
(4) W hen it gives opinion as to a public right/custom/matters of general interest.
(5) W hen it relates to the existence of arty relationship between persons as to whose
relationship the maker had special means of knowledge.
(6) When it relates to the existence of any relationship between persons deceased
and is made in any will or deed orfamily pedigree, etc
(7) W hen it is contained in any deed, will or other document relating to transaction
mentioned in Sec. 13(a).
(8) When it is made ly severalpersons and expressesfeelings relevant to matter in question.
Sec. 32 provides an exception to the principle of excluding hearsay evidence.
The principle behind is that a person who has the first-hand knowledge of the facts
o f a case, but who, because o f death, disability, etc is not able to appear before the
court, then his knowledge should be transmitted to the court through some other
person; the person who has shared the knowledge of that person will be considered
as the best evidence. Thus, necessity and convenience are the underlying grounds.
P ro o f o f a person’s death, disability, etc. will have to be offered in the first
instance to make the evidence relevant under Sec. 32. When a statement is admitted
under any o f the eight clauses o f this section, it is substantive evidence, and has to
be considered along with other evidence.
S ec. 32 (I): D ying D eclaration31
“W h e n the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to

any o f the circumstances o f the transaction which resulted in death, in cases in
31. What is a dying declaration? How and by whom it can be recorded? Discuss
fully its evidentiary value. Can an accused be convicted on the basis of dying
declaration alone? Cite case law.
[D elhiJ.S. 1982\ [ U.P. PCS (J) 1985\ [Raj.J.S. 1994\ [BiharJ.S. 1984/1986/199J\
Objective Question*
(Multiple Choice)
98. In which of the following cases, Sec. 24 Is not attracted?

(a) A constable told a prisoner that he need not say anything to enminate
himself, but what he did say would be used in evidence against
him.
(b) Where an accused was warned: "It would be better to speak the
truth".
(c) Where the accused was told by the magistrate, "Tell me where the
things are and I will be favourable to you".
(d) Where the accused was told by the magistrate, "If you do not tell
the truth you may get yourself into trouble and it will be worse for
you".
which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are
relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they
were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature o f the
proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question”.
Illustration (a): The question is, whether A was murdered by B; or A dies o f injuries
received in a transaction in the course of which she was ravished. The question is,
whether she was ravished by B; or The question is, whether A was killed by B under
such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A’s widow.
Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death referring respectively
to the murder, the rape and the actionable wrong under consideration are relevant facts.
A ‘dying declaration’ means the statement of a person who has died (by way of
homicide or suicide) explaining the cause or circumstances of his death. As the person
is dead, this statement before the court would be ‘hearsay* which is excluded for the
reasons that party against whom it is used has no opportunity of cross-examining the
original source, and it is not delivered under an oath. Sec. 32 is an exception to the
hearsay rule. The three main grounds on which dying declarations are admitted are:
(i) Death of the declarant.
(ii) N e ce ssity (only evid en ce available u n d e r th e circum stances): th e victim
Being generally the o n ly eye-w itness to th e crim e, th e exclusion o f his
s ta te m e n t w o u ld te n d to d e fe a t th e e n d s o f justice.
(lii) The sense of impending death, which creates a sanction equal to the
obligation o f an oath. Nemo moriturus presiminntnr tnentri (no one when
about to die is presumed to lie). “Truth sits upon the lips of dying men”.
The reason for admitting dying declaration is well reflected by Shakespeare in
Richard II, where he said - “Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain;
They breathe the truth that breathe their words in pain”. Sec. 32(1) is a salutary
provision o f law and has helped in securing convictions in dowry death cases and
hence contributed to controlling this grave social evil.
Distinction Between the English and Indian Law32
In England, a dying declaration is relevant only in criminal cases where the cause of
death is in question" In lndia7sucK~statemcnts are admissible both in civil and criminal
proceedings; they are admissible even it the trial is not for a person’s death. Secondly,
under English law, the dying declaration is admissible only in the single instance of
homicide Le. murder or manslaughter. Tn India, cases of ‘suicide' are also covered.
32. P o in t o u t fo u r d iffere n ce s b e tw ee n th e E n g lish a n d In d ia n law o f d y in g

d e clara tio n . [R u j.J.S . 1999\
99. A confession made to a police officer Is Irrelevant under Sec. 25. Such
a confession:
(a) Must relate to the same crime for which a person is charged.
(b) Must relate to another crime.
(c) May relate to the same crime or another crime.
100. A confession made to which of the following persons will be hit by Sec.
25:
(a) A confession made to a police officer under the POTA, 2001.
(b) A confession made to a chowkidar.
(c) A confession made to a custom officer.
(d) A confession made to a member of the Railway Protection Force.
Law of Evidence 63
Thirdly, under English law, to be relevant, a dying declaration must have been
made in expectation of death. A declaration made without appreciation of immediate
or impending death would not be admitted. There is no such requirement under the
Indian law. If the declarant has in fact died and the statement explains the
circumstances surrounding his death, the statement will be relevant even if no cause
o f death had arisen at the time of the making of the statement.J2a
Fourthly. under English law, it is necessary that the deceased should have
completed his statement, before dying. In India, if the deceased has narrated the full
storv, but tails to answer the last formal question as to “what more he wanted to
say”, the declaration can be relied upon.
Conditions o f Admissibility (Essential Requirements o f a Dying Declaration)
(1) To whom the statement is to be made and its form — A statement of dying
declaration could be made to ary person - a doctor, a magistrate, a friend
or near relative,33 a police officer However, a statement recorded by a
magistrate or doctor is considered more reliable, and that recorded by a
police officer or close relative not.
N o particular form o f recording a statement is prescribed. The statement
could be written, oral or even verbal (e.g. gestures). In Q ueen Empress v Abdullah
(1885) ILR 7 All 385, where the throat of the deceased girl was cut and she being
unable to speak indicated the name of the accused by the signs o f her hand, this
was TielcTto be relevant as dying declarafion?3* v .s t J u D h l d h .
32a. D o e s a s ta te m e n t m a d e to S.D.M . by a bride relating to the cause o f her d e ath ,

b e c o m e a ‘d y in g d e clara tio n ’ th o u g h the bride firmly believed th a t sh e w ould
reco v er, b u t d ie d after th ree days o f m aking it? [D e lh iJ .S . 2000]
33. A a n d B , tw o b ro th e rs w ere attacked; soon after the incident, W (wife o f A)
w e n t to th e s p o t w h e re she was told about the in cident by A before h e died.
L a te r, D (fa th e r o f A a n d B) ru sh ed to the sp o t a n d B m ad e th e sim ilar
s ta te m e n ts a s w ere m a d e by A. B also died. It was co n te n d ed th a t as W a n d
D w e re clo se re la tio n s o f the deceased, the dying declaration m ad e before
th e m s h o u ld n o t b e m ad e the basis o f conviction b e ca u se th ere w as n o
in d e p e n d e n t co rro b o ra tio n . D ecide. [D elh i J .S . 1996J
33a. A q u e s tio n b a se d o n the facts o f this case. [B ih a r J .S . 199I\
Objective ffueatjoam
(Multiple Choice)
1 0 1 . Confession of an accused Is Irrelevant and Inadmissible when made:
(a) In the custody of a police officer but in the immediate presence of
a Magistrate.
(b) Before a Magistrate, who told him that if he made a full confession,
he would be released.
(c) At the time when he was drunk.
(d) In police custody if it leads to the discovery of any fact.
102. A voluntary confession Is admissible In evidence:
(a) When made to a police officer.
(b) To a magistrate having competent jurisdiction.
(c) To a village sarpanch with a request to save him from police.
(d) Where it leads to no discovery of facts and made to the police officer.
64 Law Guide for Judicial Sen/ice Examination
(2) The person making the statement must have died — The death need not occur
immediately after the making o f the statement. If the person making the
declaration chances to live, his statement is inadmissible as a ‘dying
.declaration*, but it might be relied on under Sec. 157 to corroborate his
testimony or to contradict him under Sec. 145. Further, it can h e used to
corroborate the evidence- in court "under Secs. 6 and S.34 The fact that the
person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to give evidence
o f his statement.
Further, the deceased must be proved to have died as a result o f injuries
received in the incident. Where A made a statement shortly after an injury, and he
was admitted in hospital and thereafter discharged, but after 5 days he died o f high
fever, the statement made by him is not admissible under Sec. 32(1).
(3) Statement must relate to the cause of bis death or the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in bis death —i f the statement made by the deceased does not
relate to his death, but to the death o f another person, it is not relevant. For
example, where the wife made a statement that her husband is killed by Z
and then she committed the suicide.
The circumstances o f transaction resulting in death must bear proximate relation
to the cause o f death or actual occurrence. Thus, statements made by the deceased
that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons
for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, would each to
them be circumstance o f the transaction. In Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor (AIR
1939 PC 47), the statement made by the deceased to his wife that he was going to
the accused to collect money from him (the accused being indebted to the deceased),
was held to be admissible under Sec. 32(1).
vl^Tn Sharda Birdichand Sharda v State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), a
married woman had been writing to her parents and other relatives about her critical
condition at the hands o f her in-laws. She lost her life some four months Igter. Her
letters were held to be admissible as dying dcclaration. ^Hic court also pointed out
that Sec. 32 (1) is applicable to cases o f ‘suicide* also. Thus, the statements made
before a person has received any injury or before the cause o f death has arisen or
before the deceased has any reason to anticipate o f being killed are relevant as dying
34. ‘A’, who was hit by bullet stated in the hospital in the presence of the Magistrate
that ‘B’ had fired at him. But *A’ did not die of this injury. Is the statement of
‘A* admissible in evidence against ‘B’? Can it be of any other use?
[UP. PCS (J) 1986/1991/2001^[Delhi J.S. 1984\
103. In which of the following cases, a confession could be said to be made

in police custody under Sec. 26:
(a) While the accused being carried on a tonga was left alone by the
policeman in the custody of the tonga-driver and he told of his
criminality to the tonga driver.
(b) Where the accused was taken to a doctor for treatm ent, the
policeman standing outside at the door, the accused confessed to
the doctor.
(c) A confession made to a person, while in police custody, overheard
by a police officer.
Law o f Evidence 65
declarations, but such statements should have a direct relation to the cause or
occasion o f death.
(4) The cause o f death must be in question - The declaration under Sec 32(1) must
relate to the death of the declarant. In a case, A and five other persons were
charged with having committed a dacoity in a village. A, who was seriously
wounded while being arrested, made before his death a dying declaration as
to how the dacoity was- committed and who had taken part in it Held that
declaration is n o t admissible in evidence.
-
(5)
* • » •
The statement must be complete and consistent - If the deceased fails to complete
.
the main sentence (as tor instance, the genesis or motive for the crime), a
dying declaration would be unreliable. However, if the deceased has narrated
the full story, but fails to answrer the last formal question as to “what more
he wanted to say”, the declaration can be relied upon [Kusa v State o f Orissa
(1980) 2 SCC 207].
A dying declaration ought not to be rejected because it does not contain details
or suffers from minor inconsistencies. Merely because it is a brief statement, it is not
to be discharged (Oqa v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1505). Where the bride recorded
two declarations, one to a police officer and other to a magistrate, they being similar
in material factors, evidence accepted though minor discrepancies were there.
In Kamla v State of Punjab (AIR 1993 SC 374), four dying declarations were
made by the deceased. One o f them indicated the incident as an accident. The
accused (mother-in-law o f the deceased) had been convicted on the basis o f another
declaration implicating her. There were glaring inconsistencies as far as naming the
culprit was concerned. Held that the conviction cannot be based upon such
declarations.
(6) Declarant must be competent as a witness - A dying declaration of a child is inadmissible.
(7) Other points - Wliere the injured person was unconscious, dying declaration
should be rejected. Where for some unexplained reasons the person who
noted down (scribe) the statement was not produced, the declaration was
not accepted as an evidence (Govind Narain v State of Rajasthan AIR 1993
SC 2457). Where there are more than one declarations, the one first in
point o f time should be preferred (Mohan Lai v State of Maharashtra AIR
1982 SC 839).
Objective Questions
(Multiple Choice)
104. What Is not the necessary Ingredient for attracting the provisions of
Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act?
(a) The person must be accused of an offence.
(b) Male or female.
(c) He should give information.
(d) Discovery of any fact in consequence of information.
105. Under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, the ‘discovery of fact' Includes
a (a) the object found.
(b) the place from which it is produced.
(c) the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.
(d) all of the above. (De/?i/ J.S. 2002]
66 Law Guide fo r Ju d ic a l Service Examination
(8) FIR as dying declaration - Where an injured person lodged the F.I.R. and then
died, it was held to be relevant as a dying declaration \K Ramachand Reddy v
Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 104]. A report made by the deceased relating
as to the cause o f his death or as to any of the circumstances o f the
transaction which resulted in his death shall be relevant as dying declaration35
(Alabmood llahi v State o f U.P., 1990 CrLJ 885). Similarly, a ‘complaint' made
to police could be taken as a dying declaration \]ai Prakash v State of Haryana,
1999 CrLJ 837 (SC)].
A dying declaration recorded by police alone is relevant under Sec 32 (1), however,
it is better to leave such a statement out o f consideration unless the prosecution satisfies
the court as to why it was not recorded by a magistrate or a doctor (Laksbmi v Om
Prakasb AIR 2001 SC 2383). Only because certain names were included in F.I.R but
were not mentioned in dying declaration docs not detract from the value o f dying
declaration and would not by itself prove the falsity of the declaration.
Evidentiary Value o f Dying Declaration
There is no rule o f law that a dying declaration should not be acted upon unless
corroborated. But, ordinarily, it is not considered safe to convict an accused person
only on the basis o f it:
(1) It is a fxarsay evidence, not made on oath and its veracity cannot be tested
by cross-examination in the court.
(2) The maker of such a statement might be mentally and physically in a state of confision.
(3) Very often, the dying man takes that last opportunity to implicate all his enemies.
(4) In weighing the evidence o f dying declaration, various factors or circumstances
should be taken into consideration: -
(a) Nature o f its content, consistency o f statements made at different times;
(b) Capacity to remember facts; opportunity o f dying man for observation
viz. availability of light if crime done at night, to identify assailant.
(c) Proximity o f time between it and the accident; whether the statement
made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result o f any tutoring
35. ‘A’ comes to the police station and lodges First Information Report that ‘B* has
beaten him and has threatened to kill him. After two days, ‘A* is murdered. ‘B*
is arrested and prosecuted for the offence of murdering ‘A*. Decide whether
the F.I.R. may be admitted as dying declaration? [U.P. PCS (J) 1997\
106. Sec. 27 applies:

(a) To discovery of some fact which the police had not previously learnt
from other sources and was first derived from the information given
by the accused.
(b) When the person giving information is an accused and is in police custody.
(c) Both (a) and (b) are correct.
(d) Both (a) and (b) are incorrect.
107. Under Sec. 27:
(a) The whole statement is admissible.
(b) Only that portion which distinctly relates to the discovery is admissible.
(c) Statements made by the accused in connection with an investigation in
some other case which lead to the discovery of a fact are also relevant.
Law o f Evidence 67
or prom pting by interested parties (relatives). Thus, the opportunity to

consult other persons is an important factor.
In a wife burning case, the wife remained alive for about 8 days after receiving
burn injuries, but did n o t tell to any body visiting her in the hospital as to how she
came to receive the burns. When her uncle visited her she stated that her husband
had set her on fire. Held that statement seemed to have been tutored by the uncle
(State of Assam v M . Ahmed AIR 1983 SC 274). However, the mere presence of
relatives is not in itself sufficient to show that the declarant was tutored.
Thus, it is necessary that the dying declaration must be subjected to a close
scrutiny (‘proved beyond reasonable doubt5) in respect of all the relevant circumstances
of the case. The declaration must be true and voluntary. In Khusbal Rao v State of
Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22), the Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
(i) There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the
sole basis of conviction unless corroborated. A true and voluntary
declaration needs no corroboration.
(ii) A dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence than any other
piece o f evidence.
(iii) A dying declaration cannot be equated with a confession or evidence
o f approver, as it may not come from a tainted source.
(iv) Necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of
a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, but from the fact that the
court in a particular case come to the conclusion that a particular
declaration is not free from infirmities.
(v) A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in a proper
manner in the form of questions and answers, and in the words o f the
maker as far as practicable stands on a much higher footing than a
dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer
from all the infirmities of human memory and character.
In a very recent judgment (HT, Aug. 28, 2002), a 5-Judge Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court ruled that a ‘Voluntary and truthful” dying declaration without
a doctor’s endorsement that the victim was mentally fit to make the statement could
Objective Questions
(Multiple Clioice)
(a) It is not necessary under Sec. 27 that the portion of statement
which leads to discovery of facts amounts to confession.
(b) It is irrelevant under Sec. 27 that the statement was obtained by
inducement or threat.
(c) Facts discovered in consequence of a joint information are n o t.
admissible under Sec. 27 and cannot be used against any of the
accused person.
(d) Under Sec. 27, information could be given to the Magistrate also.
be the basis for convicting an accused. A certification by a doctor is essentially a

rule o f caution. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying
declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state o f mind.
3 2 (2): S ta te m e n ts Made in C ourse o f Business
Sec. 32 (2) declares relevant statements made by a person in the ordinary course
o f business and in particular when it consists o f an entry/memorandum in books;
or in the discharge o f .professional duty; or acknowledgement o f the receipt o f an)
property; or o f the date o f a letter/docum ent usually written orîgned by him.
Where the question is as to a person’s date o f birth, an entry in the diary of
a deceased surgeon regularly kept by him stating that on a certain date he attended
that person’s mother and delivered her o f a son is relevant [Must, (b). Sec. 32].
Similarly, where the question is whether a person was in Calcutta on a given date,
entries in the diary o f a deceased solicitor (regularly kept by him) that he attended
that person at a place in Calcutta is relevant [Must. (c)]. Must, (g) reads: The question
is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a letter on a certain day. The
fact that a letter written by him is dated on that day is relevant.
S ec. 32 (3): S ta te m e n ts A gainst Interest o f Maker
T Jn d cr Sec. 32 (3), “declarations against interest” include statements against the

pecuniary or proprietary interest o f the person making it, or when it would have
exposed him to a criminal prosecution or suit for damages.
The question is whether rent was paid to A for certain land. A letter from A’s
deceased agent to A, saying that he had received the rent on A’s account and held
it at A’s orders, is a relevant fact [Must. (e)]. The question is whether A and B were
legally married. The statement o f a deceased clergyman that he married them under
such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime, is relevant [Must. (f)].
Sec. 32 (3) is based on the ground that what a person says against his own
interests is very likely to be true. Thus, a statement made by a deceased in a deed, to
the effect that he is governed by the Mitakashara law, is against his proprietary interest
and admissible. A statement by a landlord who was dead, that there was a tenant on
the land, was a statement against his proprietary interest and was held admissible.
109. In a case under Sec. 27, the accused stated to the police: Ml have
burled the property stolen by me In the field. I will show It”. The
Inadmissible part of this statement Is:
(a) “I have buried the property in my field."
(b) "Stolen by me".
(c) "I will show it".
(d) There is no inadmissible part in the statement.
110. A relevant confession will become Irrelevant when:
(a) Made to a police officer.
(b) Made under a promise of secrecy.
(c) When the accused was drunk.
(d) In consequence of a deception practiced on the accused.
Law o f Evidence 69
Sec. 32 (4): D eclaration as to Public Rights
Sec. 32 (4) deals with declarations of deceased persons as to public right or custom,
or matters o f general interest It is necessary that he made the declaration before any
controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen. If the statement is
regarding a private right, it cannot be admitted under this clause.
The person making the declaration should be a person of competent knowledge.
Must. ® to Sec 32 reads: The question is, whether a given road is a public way. A statement
by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, is a relevant fact
Sec. 32 (5) & (6): D eclaration as to Relationship or Pedigree
Sec. 32 (5) provides that a statement will be relevant when it relates to the existence
of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption as to whose relationship the
maker had special means of knowledge and was made when before the question is
dispute arose (i.e. ante litem mortem and not post litem mortem).
Thus, the statements made by deceased members of a family (in a pedigree
or horoscope) are admissible in evidence if they are made before there was anything
to throw doubt upon them. Illust. (k) to Sec 32 reads: The question is, whether A,
who is dead, was the father o f B. A statement by A that B was his own son, is a
relevant fact. Similarly, when the question was whether a certain person was the
legitimate child, declaration by hjs deceased father and mother that he was bom
before marriage, was held to be admissible.
While Sec. 32 (5) refers to statement relating to the existence o f relationship
between any person (living or dead), Sec. 32 (6) is concerned with deceased persons
only. Further, while under Sec. 32 (5), the evidence is the declaration of a person
who is deceased or whose attendance cannot be secured; under Sec. 32 (6), the
evidence is that o f concrete things and is always written e.g. will or deed, tombstone,
family pedigree/ portrait, coffin plates, etc.
Illust. (1) reads: The question is, what was the date of birth of A. A letter from
AJs deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a
relevant fact. Illust. (m) reads: The question is, whether, and when, A su}d B were
O bjective Q u estio n s
(Multiple Choice)
11 1 . A confession:
(a) Is considered the best and most conclusive evidence.
(b) If voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt
(c) May not always be true.
(d) It would be quite safe to base a conviction for murder on a confession
by itself.
112. Confession of co-accused Is admissible under which section of the
Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 30.
(b) Sec. 31.
(c) Sec. 32.
(d) Sec. 33.
married. An entry in a memorandum book by C (B’s deceased father) of B’s

marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact.
Sec. 32 (7): Statem ents in Documents as to Custom or Right
U n d e r this clause, evidence can be given of a statement made in any deed, will,
etc. which relates to any transaction by which any right or custom was created,
claimed, modified, denied, etc.
k
Sec. 32 (8): Statem ent of Several Persons Expressing Feelings
A statement is relevant if it was made by a number of persons and expressed

feelings or impression on their part relevant to the matter in question. This section
may be compared with Sec. 14, which deals with expression of feelings by an
individual, lllust. (n) to Sec. 32 reads: A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted
caricature exposed in a shop window. The question is as to the similarity of the
caricature and its libelous character. The remarks of a crowd of spectators on these
points may be proved.
SEC. 33: Relevancy of Evidence in Prior Judicial Proceedings
■ E vidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any authorized

person, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding
the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found,
or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party,
or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense.
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties; that the adverse
party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that
the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second
proceeding.”
Explanation. A criminal trial or enquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between
the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
Evidence of deposition in former trials is admissible, as it forms an exception
to the hearsay rule. Sometimes it so happens that a person who has personal
knowledge of the facts of a case, did appear before a court and his testimony was
113. What Is not necessary for the confession of a co-accused under Sec.
30:
(a) All accused should be tried jointly.
(b) Trial should be for the same offence or offences.
(c) Statement of the co-accused must amount to confession.
(d) It is not necessary that the confession made by a co-accused affect himself.
114. In which of the following cases, a statement made by the accused
could be considered under Sec. 30:
(a) A and B are jointly tried for C’s murder. It is proved that A said: "B
and I murdered C”.
(b) A is on trial for C’s murder. There is evidence to show that C was
murdered by A and B, and that B said: "A and I murdered C”.
Law o f Evidence 71
recorded, but at a later stage of the same proceeding or in a subsequent proceeding,

he is not available as a witness; in such cases Sec. 33 applies. The section will apply,
for example, when an ex parte decree is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
SEC. 34: Entries in Books of Account when Relevant
“Entries in books of account, includingthose maintainedinanelectronic form,

regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, whenever they refer to a matter
into which the Court has to enquire; but such statements are not alone sufficient
evidence to charge any person with liability.”
Illustration: A sues B for Rs. 1,000 and show's entries in his account book showing
B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not
sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt.
Entries in the diary (“Jain Hawala Diary Case”) showing certain payments
made to a political leader were not admitted as evidence. The diary showed no dates
on which the payments were supposed to have been made. Such diary cannot be
regarded as a book maintained in the regular course of business [L.K Advatri v CBI,
1997 CrLJ 2556 (Del)]. Entries, even if relevant, are only corroborative evidence
Independent evidence, like the evidence of a transaction which brought about the
entry, as to the trustworthiness of the entry would be necessary to fasten anybody
with liability [CBI v V C. ShuAla (1998) 3 $CC 410],
SEC. 35: Relevancy of Entries in Public/ Electronic Record
“An entry in any public or other official book/register/record, or anelectronic

record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the
discharge of his official duty (or by any other person in performance of a duty
especially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, record, etc. is
kept), is itself a relevant fact.”
O bjective Q u estion s
(Multiple Choice)
115. “In criminal cases, when the confession of a co-accused Is being
tendered In evidence against another accused by the prosecution, and
the other evidences on record fall to prove the prosecution then the
court should acquit such accused.” In which case it was laid down so?
(a) Md. Abdul Hafeez v State.
(b) Haricharan Kurmi v State of Bihar.
(c) Mangal Singh v Emperor.
Sec. 35 is based upon the principle that public records maintained in the
perform ance o f official duties must carry a prima facie evidentiary value o f their
correctness. Thus, a municipal record o f a person’s date o f birth or death is relevant
to prove the date o f birth or death o f person concerned. There is, however, no
presum ption that such entries reflect only the truth. Though school register is
relevant for showing date o f birth, but in the absence of the material on the basis
o f which the entry was made, it would not be o f much evidentiary value (Birad M ai
Singhvi v. A tiand Pnrohit AIR 1988 SC 1976). A statement o f age in the pleadings of
a party has been regarded as an evidence o f his age.
SEC . 36: R elevancy o f S ta te m e n ts in Maps, Charts, etc.
A c co rd in g to Sec. 36, statements in maps, plans or charts which are meant for
public sale or which are prepared with the authority o f the State do carry prima facie
evidentiary value o f the truth o f their contents and, therefore, can be offered in
evidence whenever the facts stated in them are in issue or are otherwise relevant.
SEC. 37: Relevancy o f S ta te m e n ts in A cts o f Parliam ent o f England or India
“ S tatem ents o f any facts o f a public nature (as to the existence o f which the Court
has to form an opinion) made in a recital contained in any Act o f Parliament o f
the U.K. or in any Central or Provincial Act or a State Act or in a Government
Notification in the Official Gazette are relevant facts.”
The Gazetted statements are the best evidence o f facts stated in the Gazette and
are entidcd to due consideration but should not be considered as conclusive in respect
o f matters requiring judicial adjudication [Vimal Bai v Hira/al Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 22],
SEC. 38: Relevancy o f S ta te m e n ts as to Law in Law Books o f a Foreign

C ountry
V(7hen the court has to form an opinion as to law o f any country, any statement
o f the law o f that country contained in a book printed or published under the
authority o f the Government o f such country and any report o f a ruling o f the
courts o f such country, is relevant.

(a) The confession of co-accused is not “evidence", as it is not recorded
on oath, nor it is given in the presence of the accused and nor its
truth can be tested by cross-examination.
(b) It is an evidence of a very weak type.
(c) The confession of co-accused may only be taken into consideration
along with other evidence in the case, and it cannot alone form the
basis of a conviction.
(d) Confession of one co-accused can be used for the purpose of
corroborating the confession of another co-accused.
Law o f Evidence 73
HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED
SEC. 39: W h a t Evidence to be given when Statem ents forms Part of a

C on versation , D ocu m en t, etc.
A ccording to Sec. 39, where a long statement/conversation/document/ electronic

record/book/series o f letters or papers, is relevant to any proceeding the court may
in its discretion require the production of only so much of the statem ent/
conversation/document, etc. as is necessary for a hill understanding of the statement
in the particular case.
The section has been substituted by the Information Technology Act, 2000 so
as to include ‘electronic records’ also.
JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE WHEN RELEVANT

T h e general principle o f law is that judgments whether previous or subsequent are
not relevant in any case or proceeding. Every case has to be decided upon its own
facts as they exist between the parties to it and not by reference to the judgments
in other cases. A judgment in the criminal trial is not relevant to the civil case except
for the purpose o f showing the fact of trial and conviction for it.
Thus, in a suit for damages for damaging the plaintiff’s trees, the fact that the
defendant was acquitted on the same charge in a criminal prosecution was not
admitted in evidence. For the same reason, a civil judgment is not relevant to a
criminal trial though arising out o f the same facts. For example, a judgment in a civil
suit for defamation is not relevant to a criminal prosecution based upon the same
defamatory statement.
If an action is started against a manufacturer for supplying defective goods
and the court holds the manufacturer to be not liable. Subsequently, another person
starts an action against the same manufacturer, for supplying the same kind of
defective goods. The previous judgment is not relevant to the subsequent case.
O bjective Q u estio n s
(Multiple Choice)
117. When a person, having once recorded a confession which Is relevant,
goes back upon It at the trial, saying either that he never confessed or
that he wrongly confessed or confessed under pressure, that Is called a:
(a) Truncated confession.
(b) Retracted confession.
(c) Extra-judicial confession.
118. A retracted confession
(a) may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that
it was true and voluntarily made.
(b) requires a general corroboration from independent evidence.
(c) both (a) and (b) are correct.
(dl onlv (b) is correct.
Judgments are, however, relevant facts of great importance. Thus, to the

general principle that judgments are not relevant, the Act recognizes a few exceptions
(Secs. 40-43).
SEC. 40: Previous Judgment Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial
U n d e r Sec. 40, ‘the existence of a judgment, decree, or order, is a relevant fact,

if it by law has the effect o f preventing any court from taking cognizance o f a suit
or holding a trial.’ It is intended to include all cases in which a general law relating
to res judicata inter partes applies.
Res judicata means a thing upon which the court has exercised its judicial mind
and no new action can be brought on the same cause of action and between the same
parties (Sec. 11, C.P.C.). However, principle of estoppel or resjudicata does not apply
when they would contravene some statutory direction. This is something which cannot
be overridden or defeated by a previous judgment between the parties [P.G. Ushwarappa
v M. Rudrappa (1996) 6 SCC 96].
Similarly, the Criminal Procedure Code bars a second trial o f a person once
tried and convicted {autrefois convict) or acquitted (autrefois acquit). Thus, the judgment
by which he was acquitted or convicted will be relevant to every case or proceeding
in which he is charged with the same offence.
SEC. 41: Relevancy o f Certain Judgments in Probate, etc. Jurisdiction
“A final judgment, order or decree of a court exercising probate (relating to will),

matrimonial, admiralty (war claims) or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon
or takes away from any person any legal character, or declares any person to be
entitled to any such character or any specific tiling absolutely, is relevant.”
Sec. 41 deals with judgments in rem i.e. a kind of declaration about the status of
a person (e.g. that he is an insolvent or married or not), and is effective against every
body whether he was a party to the proceeding or no t A judgment in personam, on the
other hand, means a judgment between the parties (e.g. in a tort or contract action),
which binds only the parties and is not relevant in any subsequent case or proceeding.
36. W h e th e r a ju d g m e n t in a p re v io u s c a s e is a d m is s ib le a s a n e v id e n c e m a
s u b s e q u e n t c a s e ? I f so , fo r w h a t p u r p o s e ? [U .P. P C S Q ) 1999[

(a) Every confession is an admission, but every admission is not a
confession.
(b) A confession is only a species of admission.
(c) Confessions find place in civil as well as criminal proceedings.
(d) Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may
also be used in criminal proceedings.
(a) An admission made to a policeman is irrelevant.
(b) A statement may be irrelevant as a confession but it may be relevant
as an admission.
(c) An admission is not a conclusive proof of the fact admitted.
(d) A confession is considered a satisfactory proof of the guilt of the
accused.
Law o f Evidence 75
Sec. 41 further lays down that such judgment is conclusive proof - that any legal
character, which it confers, accrued at the time when such judgment came into
operation; (ii) that any legal character to which it declares ar *person to be entided
or not, accrued or ceased at the time mentioned in the judgrn (m) that any thing
to which it declares a person to be entided was that person’s property at the time
at which the judgment declares it to be his.
SEC. 42: R elevancy and Effect of Judgments, e tc. O ther than those m entioned
in S e c . 41
“Judgm ents, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Sec. 41 are relevant
if they relate to matters o f a public nature relevant to the inquiry; but such judgments,
etc. are not conclusive proof o f that which they state.” Judgments on such matters
are relevant to every case or proceeding in which the matter is again in question,
but shall not be conclusive o f the matter.
Illustration-. A sues B for trespass on his land; B alleges the existence o f a public right
o f way over the land. The existence o f a decree in favour o f the defendant, in a
suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence
o f the same right o f way, is relevant but it is not conclusive proof that the right
o f way exists.
SEC. 43: Judgm ents, e tc . O ther than those m entioned in Secs. 40-42 when
R elevant
Jud g m en ts, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Secs. 40, 41 and 42,
are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, etc., is a fact in issue, or is
relevant under some other provision o f this Act.”
Evidence can be given of a judgment when the existence o f the judgment is
itself a fact in issue or is fact otherwise relevant to the case. Thus, if a person is
murdered in consequence o f a judgment, the judgment being a cause or motive of
the murder, will be a relevant fact. The illustrations appended to Sec. 43 amply show
that the existence o f a judgment may become relevant under any of the provisions
relating to relevancy (Secs. 6-55).
O b je ctiv e QuemHoxta
(Multiple Choice)
121. 'N ecessity/ convenience rule’ as to the admissibility of evidence,
contained In Sec. 32, Is applicable when the maker of a statement:
(a) Is dead or cannot be found.
(b) Has become incapable of giving evidence.
(c) Can be found but his attendance cannot be procured without
unreasonable delay or expense.
(d) All are correct.
1 22. The maxim - Nemo morlturus presumuntur menfrf Is applicable to:
(a) Sec. 32 (1).
(b) Sec. 32 (2).
(c) Sec. 32(3).
(d) Sec. 32 (4).
(a) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A*s wife. B denies that C is A*s wife,
but the court convicts B o f adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy
in marrying B during A*s lifetime. C says that she never was A*s wife. Here,
die judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.37
(b) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A, afterwards
sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As
between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
(c) A has obtained a decree for the possession o f land against B. C, B*s son,
murders A in consequence. Here, the existence o f the judgment is relevant
as showing motive for the crime.
(d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted o f theft.
The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
SEC. 44: Fraud or Collusion in O btaining Judgm ent/ Incom petency o f C ourt
(Diminishing o f the Evidentiary Value of Judgments)
“A n y party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or
decree, relevant under Secs. 40-42 and which has been proved by the adverse party,
was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or
collusion.”
The existence o f a judgment over a matter which is again in question is a
satisfactory piece o f evidence, through, o f course, nothing is said about its evidentiary
value in the Evidence Act. The Act only provides that the value o f a judgment may
be demolished by showing that it was delivered by a court o f incompetent jurisdiction,
or it was obtained by fraud or collusion.
Such a judgment does not have the effect o f resjudicata. A judgment obtained
by ‘collusion* means that there was no cause o f action between the parties and by
collusion o f the parties a cause o f action was feigned thus enabling the court to
pass its judgment.
37. A q u e s t io n b a s e d o n th is illu s tr a tio n . [U.P. PCS (J) 1988\
123. A dying declaration, under Sec. 32 (1)

(a) must be made by a person as to the cause of his own death.
(b) is relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at
the time when they were made, under expectation of death.
(c) is relevant whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which
the cause of his death comes into question.
(d) all are correct.
124. If the person making the dying declaration chances to live, his statement
(a) will be inadmissible as a ‘dying declaration’.
(b) can be used to corroborate or contradict his testimony.
Law o f Evidence 77
O P IN IO N OF THIRD PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT

T h e term ‘opinion* means something more than mere relating of gossip or of
hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is a belief or conviction resulting from
what one thinks o n a particular question. What a person thinks in respect to the
existence or non-existence o f a fact is opinion, and whatever is presented to the
senses o f a witness and o f which he receives direct knowledge without any process
o f thinking and reasoning is not opinion.
For example, the question is whether a certain injury was caused by a spear.
A states that he saw the accused causing the injury by a spear. This is not A*s
opinion. But, if a doctor, who did not see the injury being caused, says that he
thinks that the injury was caused by a spear, it is his opinion. What one sees, hears,
feels by touch, and knows is not opinion and on the contrary what is the conclusion
o f an individual is his opinion.
T he opinions o r beliefs o f third persons are, as a general rule, irrelevant, and
therefore, inadmissible. Witnesses are to state the facts only Le. what they themselves
saw or heard, etc. It is the function of the judge or jury to form their own
conclusion o r opinion on the facts stated.
Thus, the opinion or the impression of a witness that it appeared to him from
the conduct o f a m ob that they had collected for an unlawful purpose is inadmissible
to prove the object o f the assembly. The witnesses are generally interested in the
parties to the litigation and if their opinion were admissible, grave injustice would
be caused.
There are, however, cases in which the court is not in a position to form a
correct opinion (e.g. when the question involved is beyond the range o f common
experience or common knowledge), without the help of persons who have acquired
special skill or experience in a particular subject. In these cases, the rule is relaxed,
and expert evidence is admitted to enable the court to come to a proper decision.
The rule admitting ‘expert evidence* is, thus, founded on necessity.
Objective QtaemtiaMut
(Multiple Choice)
125. A dying declaration Is admissible In:
(a) Civil proceedings only.
(b) Criminal proceedings omy.
(c) Civil as well as criminal proceedings.
(d) Marital proceedings only.
126. Telling his wife that P's wife had called him to receive payments due
to him, K leaves his house. After two days, his dismembered body Is
found In a trunk. In P's trial for murder of K, the statement made by
K to his wife is:
(a) Inadmissible.
(b) Partly admissible.
(c) Inadmissible as it does not directly relates to K’s death.
(d) Admissible as it relates to the circumstance of the transaction which
resulted in K’s death. [M.P. CJ. (Prelim.) 1996]
SE C . 45: O pinion o f E xperts38
“VC^hen the court has to form an opinion upon a point o f foreign law or of
science or art, or as to identity o f handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions
upon that p o in t o f persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or
in questions as to identity o f handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts”.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether the death o f A was caused by poison. The opinion
o f experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is
supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by
reason o f unsoundness o f mind, incapable o f knowing the nature o f act,
o r that he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. The opinion of
experts upon the question o f unsoundness of A*s mind, are relevant.
(c) The question is whether certain document was written by A. Another
docum ent is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by
A. The opinions o f experts on the question whether the two documents
were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.
Sec. 45 permits only the opinions o f an expert to be cited in evidence. An
‘expert* witness is one who has devoted time and study to a special branch o f learning,
and thus is specially skilled on those points on which he is asked to state his opinion.
His evidence on such points is admissible to enable the court to come to a satisfactory
conclusion. An experienced police officer may be permitted to give ‘expert* evidence
as to how an accident may have occurred. An expert opinion will not be read into
evidence unless he is examined before the court and is subjected to cross-examination.
38 . W h o is a n e x p e r t ? W h e n a r e th e o p i n io n s o f e x p e r t s re le v a n t? W h a t a r e th e
d if f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n a n e x p e r t a n d a n o r d i n a r y w itn e s s ? A n a ly z e th e e v id e n tia r y
v a lu e o f o p i n io n o f e x p e r t s . [U .P . P C S (J ) 1 9 8 2 /1 9 8 5 /1 9 9 7 \
W ill t h e fo llo w in g e x p e r t e v id e n c e b e a d m i t te d : E v id e n c e o f a n e x p e r t to g iv e
h is o p in io n u p o n th e c o n s tru c tio n o f a d o c u m e n t? [U P . P C S (J ) 1982]
W rite a s h o r t n o t e o n : E x p e r t w i t n e s s . [ D e lh i J .S . 1982]
C o m m e n t : “ H a n d w r i t i n g o f a p e r s o n c a n a ls o b e p r o v e d b y a p e r s o n w h o is
q u a li f i e d to e x p r e s s a n o p i n io n .” [ D e lh i J .S . 1999]
127. What Is not essential In relation to a dying declaration made by a

person?
(a) Statement in any form should be relevant.
(b) It must relate to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death.
(c) The statem ent may not be complete and consistent.
(d) Declarant must be competent as a witness.
128. To be admissible, a dying declaration:
(a) M ust be m ade before a M agistrate.
(b) Must be made before a Police officer.
(c) Must be made before a Doctor.
(d) May be made to any person - a doctor, a magistrate, friend or near
relative, a police officer.
Law o f Evidence 79
difference between Experts’ testimony and of Ordinary Witness - An ordinary witness

must depose to w hat actually took place. An expert’s evidence is not confined to
what actually took place, but covers his opinions on facts (e.g. a medical man may
give his opinion as to the cause of a person’s death). An expert can refer to and
rely upon experiments conducted by him in the absence of the other party. An
expert may quote passages from well-known textbooks on the subject. An expert
may state facts relating to other cases in pari materia similar to the case under
investigation.
Subjects on W hich E xperts Can Give Opinion
The subjects on w hom an expert is competent to testify are: foreign law, matters
of science, questions o f art, identity of handwriting, or of finger impressions. The
words ‘science* or ‘art* include all subjects on which the course of special study or
experience is necessary to the formation of opinion. The matter in question must
be o f technical nature, for no expert can be permitted to speak on a matter with
which the judge may be supposed to be equally well acquainted.
T he Supreme C ourt has held that the opinion of a person that a particular
letter was typed on a particular typewriter is not admissible, as it does not fall within
Sec 45 (Hannmantv State of U.P. AIR 1952 SC 343). The decision has been criticized
and it has been suggested that “the claim of experts that the identity o f machine
may be established by proving the identity of defects or peculiarities which it
impresses on paper should have been considered’*.
Proof o f Age*9 - A doctor’s opinion as to age of a person based on his or her
height, weight and teeth does not amount to legal proof o f age of that person. But
such evidence is relevant. An opinion based on the X-ray plate examination has
been held to be admissible (Ram Swaroop v State, 1989 CrLJ 2435 All). However, in
Anita v A t aI Bihari, 1993 CrLJ 549 (M.P.), held that in ascertaining date o f birth,
opinion o f radiologist cannot be preferred over the entry in the register of births
and deaths maintained under the provisions of an Act.
39. I n a c a s e , t h e d a te o f b i r th o f th e a c c u s e d is in q u e s tio n . W h e th e r th is m a tte r

m a y b e r e f e r r e d to a ra d io lo g is t a s a n e x p e rt u n d e r S ec. 45. G ive r e a s o n s .
[Raj.J.S. 1999[
O b jective Q u estio n s
(Multiple Choice)
129. A dying declaration:
(a) Always requires corroboration from independent evidence.
(b) Can be equated with a confession or evidence of approver.
1 30. Where the question Is as to a person’s date of birth, an entry In the diary
of a deceased surgeon regularly kept by him stating that on a certain
date he attended that person's mother and delivered her of a son Is:
(a) Relevant.
(b) Irrelevant.
(c) Not relevant under Sec. 32.
In a case o f kidnapping o f a girl, the medical evidence showed her age

between 17 and 18 years and the documentary evidence showed her to be above 18
years. Held that the medical evidence was not a conclusive proof o f age [S.K. BelaI
v State, 1994 CrLJ 467 (Ori)].
Value o f E xp ert O pinion
T he Evidence Act only provides about the relevancy o f expert opinion but gives
no guidance as to its value. It is often said that there cannot be any more unsatisfactory
evidence than that o f an expert. The value o f expert opinion suffers from various
drawbacks'. There is the danger o f error or deliberate falsehood. “These privileged
persons might be half blind, incompetent or even corrupt.” His evidence is after
all opinion and “human judgment is fallible”. They are likely to be unconsciously
prejudiced in favour o f the side which calls them (witnesses “retained and paid” to
support by their evidence a certain view).
It would be highly unsafe to convict a person on the sole testimony o f an
expert. The reliability o f such evidence has, therefore, to be tested the same way in
which any other piece o f evidence is tested. The Supreme Court has laid down
following principles in this regard (Murari lâl v State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531):
(i) There is no rule o f law that the opinion evidence o f an expert must never
be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. In appropriate cases,
corroboration must be sought.
(ii) But, the approach should be one o f caution. Reasons for the opinion must
be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be
considered.
(iii) The hazard in accepting the expert opinion, is not because experts are
unreliable witnesses but because all human judgment is fallible. The science
o f identification o f fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk o f
incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. The science o f identification
o f handwriting is not so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher.
(iv) The opinion o f expert is relevant but not decisive or conclusive o f the
matter. The court should not surrender its opinion to that o f the expert.
An expert deposes and not decides.
Medical opinion - Opinion o f medical officer cannot be taken as contradicting the
positive evidence o f the witness o f the facts. Where the direct evidence about
assault by a particular person is satisfactory and reliable, medical evidence cannot
131. The question Is, whether a given road Is a public way. A statement by
Aâ deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, Is a
relevant fact under:
(a) Sec. 32 (2).
(b) Sec. 32 (3).
(c) Sec. 32 (4).
(d) Sec. 32 (5).
Law o f Evidence 81
override that because the latter is hypothetical {Punjab Singh v State of Haryana AIR
1984 SC 1223). However, where the medical report differed from injuries described
bv the witnesses, medical evidence should prevail (Amar Singh v State of Punjab AIR
1987 SC 726). Between the opinion o f two doctors, the opinion which supports
direct evidence should be accepted {Piara Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 221 A).
Thus, in case o f any conflict between eye-evidence and the medical evidence the
court will have to go by the evidence which inspires more confidence.
In respect o f nature o f injuries and causes of death, most competent witness
is the doctor examining the deceased and conducting post-mortem. Unless there is
something inherendy defective, the court cannot substitute its opinion in place of
the doctor’s {Mafabhai N . Raval v State of Gujarat AIR 1992 SC 2186). Where the
doctor failed to give his opinion about the nature of injury, the court cannot
substitute its opinion assuming the role o f an expert [Babloo v Statey 1995 CrLJ 3534
(M.P.)].
Value o f opinion o f handwriting exp ert - The opinion of an expert in writing is
considered as the weakest and the least reliable evidence. It has been held that it is
not safe to base conviction upon the opinion of writing expert alone.
However, in Ram Narain v State of U.P. (AIR 1973 SC 2200), solely on the
basis o f expert evidence the accused was convicted by the lower courts. The Supreme
Court upheld the conviction. The Court said: “Both under Sec. 45 and Sec. 47 the
evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter
on the basis o f familiarity resulting from frequent observation. In either case, the
court m ust satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted
upon. O ne such means is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved
writings, not become a handwriting expert but to verify the opinion of the witness.”
The court held that if after comparison of disputed and admitted writings by
court itself, it is considered safe to accept the opinion of expert, then the conclusion
so arrived at cannot be attacked on special leave merely on the ground that comparison
of handwriting is generally considered hazardous and inconclusive. In Murari L ai v
State o f M.P. the Supreme Court observed that even if no handwriting expert is
produced before the court, the court has the power to compare the handwriting
itself and decide the matter.
40. Examine the admissibility of the evidence of a handwriting expert.
[U .P. P C S (J)
O b je c tiv e Q u e stio n s
(Multiple Choice)
132. A su es B for a libel expressed In a painted caricature exposed in a shop
window. The question is as to the similarity of the caricature and Its
libelous character. The remarks of a crowd of spectators on these
points may be proved undgr:
(a) Sec. 32 (4).
(b) Sec. 32 (5).
(c) Sec. 32 (6).
(d) Sec. 3 2 (8).
SEC. 46: Facts Bearing upon Opinion o f Experts
“F a c ts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with
the opinions o f experts, when such opinions are relevant”.
The effect o f the provision is that when the opinion o f an expert is relevant
and has been cited, any fact which will either support his opinion or contradict it
will also become relevant (Res inter alia acta). Thus, where the question is, whether
A was poisoned by a certain poison; the fact that other persons, who were poisoned
by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the
symptoms o f that poison, is relevant.
SEC. 47: Opinion as to Handwriting w hen Relevant
A ccording to Sec. 47, when the court had to determine the question whether a
document is written or signed by a certain person, the court can admit the opinion of
a person who is acquainted with that person’s handwriting. The explanation attached
to the section gives guidance as to who is considered to be acquainted with another’s
handwriting. It includes a person:
(i) who has seen that person write, or
(ii) who has received documents written by that person in answer to documents
written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or
(iii) who has in the ordinary course o f business, received documents written by
that person or such documents are habitually submitted to him.
Illustration - The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting o f A, a
merchant in London.
B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and
received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B’s clerk, whose duty it was
to examine and file B’s correspondence. D is B’s broker, to whom B habitually
submitted tfic letters purporting to be written by A. The opinion o f B, C and D
on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting o f A are relevant, though
neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.41
41. A q u e s t io n b a s e d o n th is illu s tra tio n . [R aj.J.S. 199I\
133. Regarding the relevancy of evidence In prior Judicial proceedings, under

Sec. 33, which Is not an essential condition?
(a) Proceeding should be between the same parties.
(b) Adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity
to cross-examine.
(c) The questions in issue should be substantially the sam e in the first
as in the second proceeding.
(d) This provision is applicable only to civil proceedings.
Law o f Evidence 83
In \rakhruddin v State of M.P (AIR 1967 SC 1326), it was held that handwriting
may be proved by evidence of a witness in whose presence the writing was done
and this would be direct evidence and if it is available the evidence o f any other kind
is rendered unnecessary.
Modes o f Proving Handwriting42
The E vidence Act recognize the following modes o f proving handwriting:
(i) By the evidence o f the writer himself.
(ii) By the opinion o f an expert (Sec. 45).
(iii) By the evidence o f a person who is acquainted with the handwriting o f the
person in question (Sec 47).
(iv) By the court itself comparing the handwriting (Sec 73).
S ec. 47A : O pinion as to Digital Signature when Relevant
W h en the court has to form an opinion as to the digital signature o f any person,
the opinion o f the Certifying Authority which has issued the Digital Signature
Certificate is a relevant fact.
SEC. 48: O pinion as to Existence o f Right or Custom
S ec 48 makes those opinions relevant which proves the existence of any general custom
or right The right o f the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular
well is a general right within the meaning of this section (Also see Secs. 13 and 32 (4)].
SEC. 49: O pinion as to Usages, Tenets, etc.
Sec. 49 makes opinions of such persons relevant who have special means of knowledge
regarding the usages and tenets o f a body of men or family, the constitution and
i
42. H o w is t h e d i s p u t e d h a n d w r itin g o f a p e r s o n p ro v e d ?
[UP. PCS (J) 1987\ [Raj.J.S. 1994\[D clhiJ.S. 1984\
O b je c tiv e Qtxcatiojna
(Multiple Choice)
134. A sues B for Rs. 1,000 and shows entries In his account book showing
B to be indebted to him to this amount.
(a) The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other
evidence, to prove the debt.
(b) The entries are relevant as well as sufficient to prove the debt.
(c) The entries are irrelevant.
135. Regarding the relevancy of entries in public records, under Sec. 35,
which is not an essential condition?
(a) Entries are to be made by a public servant.
(b) Entries to be made in the discharge of his official duty.
(c) Entry should be a public record.
governm ent o f any religious or charitable foundation, and, die meaning o f words or
terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people.
SEC. 50: O pinion on Relationship
S ec. 50 makes the opinion o f a person expressed by his conduct, who as a member
o f the family or otherwise has special means o f knowledge as to the relationship
o f one person to another, relevant.
Illustrations', (a) - The question is, whether A and B, were married. The fact that they
were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son o f B. The fact that A
was always treated as such by members o f the family is relevant.
Relationship includes relation by blood, marriage or adoption. It may be noted
that under Sec. 32, which also contains provision for proving relationship, the
statements o f dead persons arc relevant; while, under Sec. 50 the opinion o f a
person alive is relevant. The opinion must have been expressed by conduct, and not
merely by words or statements. It is very im portant to note that Evidence Act does
not contain any express provision making evidence o f general reputation admissible
as proof o f relationship. A was die father o f C and V is the father o f R as stated
by witnesses was held not admissible under Sec 50.
Proviso to Sec. 50 —It lays down that in the cases under Secs. 494, 495, 497 and 498 of
IPC and a proceeding under the Indian Divorce Act, the evidence of marriage cannot
be given by opinion of an expert. In diese cases, strict proof o f marriage is necessary
Lc witnesses in whose presence the marriage was celebrated must be produced.
SEC. 51: Grounds o f Opinion w hen Relevant
Sec. 51 provides that whenever the opinion o f a living person is relevant, the grounds
on which his opinion is based shall also be relevant. An expert may give an account
o f experiments performed by him for the purpose o f forming his opinion.
The opinion of an expert by itself may be relevant, but would carry little weight
with a court unless supported by a clear statement of what he noticed and upon what
he based his opinion.
136. Mark the Incorrect matching:

(a) Relevancy of Statements in Maps, Charts: Sec. 36.
(b) Relevancy of Statements in Acts of Parliament of England or India:
Sec. 37.
(c) Relevancy of Statements as to Law in Law Books of a Foreign
Country: Sec. 38.
Law o f Evidence 85
CHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT

T o what extent is the character, general reputation of a person relevant in civil or
criminal proceedings has been made clear by Secs. 52-55. Character is “a combination
of peculiar qualities impressed by nature or by the habit of the person, which distinguish
him from others”. In respect o f the character of a party, two distinctions must be
drawn, namely between the cases when the character is in issue and is not in issue and
when the cause is civil or criminal.
SEC. 52: In Civil C ases C haracter to Prove Conduct Imputed, Irrelevant
Sec. 52 lays down the broad general principle that “the evidence o f a party’s
character cannot be given for the purpose o f showing that it renders the conduct
imputed to him as probable or improbable”. Thus, a party cannot give evidence o f
his good character for the purpose o f showing that it is improbable that he should
be guilty o f the conduct imputed to him. For example, if a person is charged with
negligent driving he cannot give evidence of the fact that his character and conduct
has been such that he could not have been guilty o f negligence.
T he reason is that the court has to try the case on the basis o f its facts for
the purpose o f determining whether the defendant should be liable or not. The
court has n o t to try the character o f the parties and the evidence o f character will
not only prolong the proceedings but will also unnecessarily prejudice the mind o f
the judge one way o r other. Further, in civil cases, the previous convictions o f the
defendant are irrelevant.
Sec. 52, however, also lays down that a fact, which is otherwise relevant,
cannot be excluded from evidence only because it incidentally exposes or throws
light upon a party’s character. This is an exception to the general principle laid in Sec.
52. The court may form its own conclusions as to the character o f a party’ to a suit
as exhibited by the relevant facts proved in the case, and draw an inference that he
might probably have been guilty o f the conduct imputed to him.
Evidence can be given o f a party’s character when his character is itself a fact
in issue. Where, for example, an action is brought for divorce on the ground o f
cruelty; the cruel character o f defendant, being a fact in issue, the plaintiff can lead
Objective Questions
(Multiple Choice)
137. The general principle of law Is that judgments whether previous or
subsequent are not relevant In any case or proceeding. However,
judgments are relevant In which of the following cases:
(a) Judgments having the effect of res judicata.
(b) Judgments if they relate to matters of a public nature.
(c) When the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue.
86 Law G uide fo r Jud icia l Service Exam ination
evidence of it. The character of a female chastity has been received in evidence in
action for breach of promise for marriage.
SEC. 53: In Criminal Cases Previous Good Character Relevant
Sec. 53 says, “in criminal cases, the fact that the person accused is of a good
character is relevant”. Normally, we presume that a person of good character and
reputation will not generally resort to any criminal act. Thus, goodness if proved,
leads to presumption against the commission of a crime.
Evidence of good character is always admissible. But in any case, the character
evidence is a weak evidence; it cannot outweigh the positive evidence in regard to
the guilt of a person. It may be useful in doubtful cases to tilt the balance in favour
of the accused (Bhagwan Swamp v State AIR 1965 SC 682).
SEC. 54: Previous Bad Character Not Relevant, Except in Reply43
According to Sec. 54, “evidence may not be received regarding the badness of
party’s character in criminal proceedings, unless evidence has been given that he has
a good character, in which case it becomes relevant”. In other words, the prosecution
cannot lead evidence of the bad character of accused as part of its original case.
They can produce evidence of bad character only in reply to the accused showing
his good character.
Criminal cases also admit of certain exceptions. There are certain cases in which
evidence of a prisoner’s bad character can be given:
(1) To rebut prior evidence of good character (Sec. 54).
(2) The character is itself a fact in issue (Explanation 1 to Sec. 54). For example,
in a prosecution for rape, the bad character of prosecution (raped woman)
may be a fact in issue for it may afford a defence to the accused. Under
Sec. 110, Cr.P.C., a person is to be bound down if he is by habit a robber,
a housebreaker, etc.
43. In a trial for an offence, the p ro se cu tio n a d d u ce s evidence o f b a d c h a ra c te r o f

the accu sed . T h e a cc u se d o bjects adm issibility o f p ro se cu tio n e vidence o n the
g ro u n d th a t he has n o t given evidence o f his goo d character. D ecide.
[U.P. P C S (J) 1997\
138. A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B Is convicted. A, afterwards

sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. The
Judgment against B Is
(a) relevant as between A and C.
(b) irrelevant as between A and C.
(c) is without jurisdiction.
(d) is conclusive proof against C. [M.P. CJ. {Prelim.) 1996]
139. What a person thinks In respect to the existence or non-existence of
a fact Is called:
(a) Opinion.
(b) Thought.
(c) Hearsay.
(d) Idea.
Law of Evidence 87
(3) A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character in criminal

cases (Explanation 2 to Sec. 54). Under Sec 71, IPC if it is proved that a
person is a previous convict he shall be sentenced to much longer term of
imprisonment than would ordinarily have been awarded to him.43a
SEC. 55: Character as Affecting Damages
Sec. 55 says, “in civil cases the fact that the character of any person is such as to
affect the amount o f damages which he ought to receive, is relevant”. The evidence
of good or bad character of the defendant is irrelevant to damages. But the character
of the plaintiff is relevant. In an action for damages, for seduction or rape or libel,
evidence o f bad character o f the plaintiff is allowed, as it is likely to affect the
damages that the plaintiff ought to receive.
Explanation —It states that, the word “character” used in Secs. 52-55 includes both
reputation and disposition; except as provided in Sec 54, evidence may be given
only of general character and' not o f particular acts by which the character is shown.
‘Reputation’ means what is thought of a person by others and is constituted
by public opinion. It may be noted that the evidence of those, who know the man
and his reputation is admissible. Evidence of those who do not know the man but
have heard o f the reputation (hearsay evidence) is not admissible. ‘Disposition’
implies one’s own individual opinion of another person’s character.
43a. C o m m e n t: “A previous conviction is relevant as evidence o f b a d c h ara cte r.”

[D elh i J .S . 1999[
Objective Q uestions
(Multiple Choice)
140. Opinion of expert* Is relevant under which section of the Evidence Act?
(a) Sec. 41.
(b) Sec. 43.
(c) Sec. 44.
(d) Sec. 45.
141. in which of the following cases, the opinion of experts Is not relevant?
(a) A point of foreign law.
(b) Matters of science or questions of art.
(c) Handwriting or finger impressions.
(d) A point of Indian law.

SEC. 17: A DM Ission D Efin Ed 15: Admissions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEC. 17: A DM Ission D Efin Ed 15: Admissions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

36 Law Guide for Judicial Service Examination

SEC. 17: A dm ission D efined15

“A n admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference

15. Define admission. Who can make admission?

Admissions constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. This is so because an

SECS. 18-20: Persons W h ose Admissions are Relevant

16. “Silence may sometimes amount to an admission”. Explain and illustrate.

(ii) an agent authorized by such party,

62. Sec. 13 of the Evidence Act applies to

SEC. 21: A g a in s t w hom Adm ission May be Proved17

66. A Is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to

A d m issio n s H ow Far Relevant [Secs. 22-23]

SEC. 22 : W h e n O ral Adm issions as to Contents of D ocum ents are Relevant

O r a l admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and

SEC. 22A: W h en Oral Adm issions as to Contents of Electronic Records are

SEC. 23: C om m u n ication w ithout Prejudice

“I n civil cases, no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express

T h e term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act. The definition o f

18. What is confession? [UP. PCS Q) 1986\ [BihsuJ.S. 199I\

71. A falsely represented to B that he was the manager of a mercantile

20. Distinguish between Judicial and Extra-judicial confession.

< Objective QucmHomsm

confession. A confession o f a military sepoy to his superior’s as to how he killed

C onfessions w hen Irrelevant: Involuntary C onfessions [Secs. 2 4 -26]21

SEC. 24: C onfession caused by Inducem ent, T hreat or Prom ise

21. When does a confession become irrelevant? [UP. PCS Q) 1988\

74. Mark the Incorrect statement:

SEC. 25: C on fession to Police22

78. Mark the Incorrect statement:

SEC. 26: C onfession in Police C ustody25

25. What is the importance of a confession made by an accused while in police

82. Which of the following admission Is no evidence?

(iv) A confession made to a person, while in police custody, overheard by

C onfession w h en R elevant [Secs. 27-29]

SEC. 27: H ow Much o f Information Received from Accused May be Proved

“Vt^hen any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence o f information received

26. A, an accused, while in police custody makes a confession to his relative B. Is

of such information (whether it amounts to a confession or not) as relates distinctly

84. Admissions of a third person are also receivable In evidence under

The Court observed: Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will

SEC. 28: Confession made After Removal of Threat, Inducement, etc.

“If such a confession as is referred to in Sec. 24 is made after the impression

SEC. 29: Confession Otherwise Relevant Not to become Irrelevant because

SEC. 30: Confession of Co-Accused28

28. W h o is s a id to b e a c o -a c c u s e d u n d e r the E v id e n ce A ct? U n d e r w h a t

91. Admissions are:

T he confession o f co-accused may only be taken into consideration along

Where an extra-judicial confession was recorded by the village assistant in the

D istin ction B e tw e e n Admission and Confession30

T h e r e are many com m on features between an admission and a confession. In both

(4)An admission made to any person whatsoever is relevant whether he be a

SEC. 3 1: A d m ission s N o t C onclusive Proof, but they May Estop

97. A confession caused by an Inducement, threat or promise Is Irrelevant

(2) W hen it is made in the course of business, such as an entry in books, or

S ec. 32 (I): D ying D eclaration31

“W h e n the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to

98. In which of the following cases, Sec. 24 Is not attracted?

32. P o in t o u t fo u r d iffere n ce s b e tw ee n th e E n g lish a n d In d ia n law o f d y in g

32a. D o e s a s ta te m e n t m a d e to S.D.M . by a bride relating to the cause o f her d e ath ,

103. In which of the following cases, a confession could be said to be made

106. Sec. 27 applies:

or prom pting by interested parties (relatives). Thus, the opportunity to

be the basis for convicting an accused. A certification by a doctor is essentially a