THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

Evidence and its relationship with the substantive and procedural laws

The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin term ‘evidere’ which means ‘to show clearly, to discover,
to ascertain or to prove’.

Evidence plays a crucial role in the legal system, and its relationship with substantive and procedural laws
is fundamental to ensuring justice is served.

1) Substantive Law-

Substantive law defines the rights, duties, and legal obligations of individuals and entities. It sets the rules
that govern what is lawful and what is not.

Evidence is directly related to substantive law in that it helps establish facts and circumstances that are
relevant to a case. It is the means by which parties prove or disprove the elements of a legal claim or
defense.

For example, in a criminal case, the substantive law defines what constitutes a crime and the elements
that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, physical
evidence, or documents, is presented to establish these elements.

2) Procedural Law:

Procedural law outlines the process and rules that must be followed in legal proceedings, from the
initiation of a case to its resolution.

Evidence is intimately connected to procedural law because it governs how evidence is collected,
admitted, and presented during a trial or other legal proceedings.

Rules of evidence, which are typically part of procedural law, dictate what types of evidence are admissible
and under what conditions. These rules ensure fairness and reliability in legal proceedings.

3) Relevance and Admissibility:

Evidence must be relevant to the case to be admissible. Substantive law often defines what is relevant to
a particular claim or defense.

Procedural law sets the standards for determining the admissibility of evidence. It includes rules regarding
the authentication of documents, the qualifications of witnesses, and the exclusion of certain types of
evidence, such as hearsay or illegally obtained evidence.

4) Burden of Proof:

Substantive law establishes the burden of proof required for a party to prevail in a case. For example, in
a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Procedural law governs how the burden of proof is met. It sets the rules for presenting evidence and the
standards for evaluating it.

5) Presumption of Innocence:

In many legal systems, there is a fundamental presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. This
presumption is a substantive legal principle.

Procedural law ensures that this presumption is upheld by requiring the prosecution to present evidence
of guilt and allowing the defense to challenge that evidence.

In summary, evidence is intimately connected to both substantive and procedural laws in the legal system.
Substantive laws define the rights and obligations of parties, while procedural laws govern how evidence
is gathered, presented, and challenged in court to ensure a fair and just resolution of legal disputes.

Definitions: SECTION 3 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

1) FACTS

“Fact” means and includes:

(1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;

(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Depending upon whether the fact is perceived by senses or not, facts are classified into two types a)
physical facts and b) psychological facts.

Clause (1) of Section 3 refers to the things which are subject to perception by bodily senses (vision, touch,
taste, hearing, Smell). Such things which are subjected to the perception of bodily senses are called
physical facts.

Clause (2) of Section 3 refers to those facts, which cannot be perceived by senses and are ‘Psychological
Facts’.

eg- That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses
a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation,
is a fact.

That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.

2) FACTS IN ISSUE

Section 3

The expression “facts in issue” means and includes––

any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence , non-existence, nature
or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily
follows.

–Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil

Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue
is a fact in issue.

Section 9-

Evidence relating to facts in issue is admissible, and it is crucial for the court to consider such evidence
when deciding the case.

3) “Relevant”–

Section 3-

One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways
referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

4) “Proved”– A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

“Disproved”–– A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

“Not proved”–– A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

5) Oral and documentary evidence; Relevancy and admissibility;

Section 3 –

“Evidence” means and includes ––

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to
matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;] such documents
are called documentary evidence.

Oral Evidence

Oral evidence is defined under section 3 (under evidence head) which explains that “All statements which
the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under
inquiry, such statements are called as oral evidence.”

sec 119- Oral Evidence also includes the statements made by people in signs and writing forms (inclusive
of people who cannot speak).

Oral Evidence is dealt with under Section 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Sec 59- Proof of facts by Oral Evidence

All the facts and circumstances may be proved by oral evidence by expressing or speaking except the
contents of documents and electronic records. The contents of documents and electronic records cannot
be proved by oral evidence. It is held that if any person has to be called for proving their documents then
that document becomes oral and documentary evidence loses its significance.

It was held in Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The pioneer chemical co. that “Documentary evidence becomes
meaningless if the writer has to be called in every case to give oral evidence of its contents. If that were
the position, it would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral and that oral evidence
would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognized by law. This provision would clearly indicate that
to prove the contents of a document by means of oral evidence would be a violation of that section.”

Sec 60 - Oral evidence must be direct (rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence)

If fact can be seen, heard, perceived through senses then evidence must be given by the person who has
himself seen, heard or perceived the fact.

The word “Direct” in all matters must mean that it is administered by any person on their own i.e. through
their personal knowledge and is not passed by any other person (hearsay) which on the other hand will
be inadmissible.

Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the
grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author
is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness
without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:

Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence to the existence or condition of any material
thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing
for its inspection.
HEARSAY EVIDENCES

Statement given by a witness not on his own knowledge, but upon the knowledge of someone else are
hearsay evidence.

Hearsay is any information which is received by any person from any other source. Hearsay means when
a person does not have a personal knowledge about a particular matter or incident and he has been
informed about that particular matter by any other person.

As oral evidence includes first-hand knowledge thus, Hearsay evidence is excluded under the ambit of oral
evidence because hearsay is not directly obtained evidence.

Case law- Kalyan kumar gogoi vs ashutosh agnihotri & Anr

Hearsay evidence is an exception of oral evidence

Reasons of exclusion of hearsay evidence

1) Witness may not give exact evidence as its not based on his own knowledge; can’t be prosecuted for
perjury.

2) Witness can't be effectively cross- examined

3) There are chances of fabrication and exaggeration

Exceptions- when hearsay evidence is not excluded

1) S6 Res gestae

2) Admission and confession

3) S32 dying declaration

4) Evidence given in former proceeding

5) Proviso of S60 opinion of experts in treatise

6) S74 statement made in public docs

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Sec 64- Proof of documents by primary evidence

Sec 65- Cases in which secondary evidence may be given

Sec 3 defines document-

"Documents" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or
by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
All document including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such statements are
called documentary evidence.

Sec 61- Proof of contents of document either by-

Primary evidence Sec 62

Secondary evidence Sec 63

PRIMARY EVIDENCE (SEC 62) - Document itself produced for inspection of the court (original doc)

It is the best evidence to prove contents of document.

Explanation 1-

(Part 1) Document executed in several part, each of such document is primary evidence- where doc is
written out and executed by all, as many times as number of persons, each party retaining one signed
copy.

(Part 2) Document executed in counterpart each counterpart is primary evidence against party executing
it.

Each document is signed by only 1 party

Such document is delivered to other party

Party who executes it, against him its primary evidence

Party who doesn’t executes it, against him its secondary evidence

Explanation- 2

Number of doc made by one uniform process (by printing, photography, lithography), then each such copy
of original is primary evidence of the contents of rest but they are not primary evidence of contents of
original.

SECTION 63-

Secondary evidence means and include-

(1) Certifies copies of public documents u/s 76 of act

(2) Copies made by mechanical process and copies compared with such copies compared with such copies
(e.g. - photograph)

(3) Copies made from and compared with original

(4) Counterparts of documents as against party who did not execute it

(5) Oral accounts of contents of document by person who read it

SECTION 64- PROOF OF DOCUMENTS BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE

Rule of best evidence in cases of documentary evidence

Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned from Sec 65 (a) to (g)

a) Cases in which secondary evidence may be given- original is in possession of adverse party
b) When contents of original are admitted
c) Original is destroyed or lost
d) Original not easily movable
e) Public document
f) Certifies copy
g) Original consisting of numerous account

RELEVANCY

If one fact is connected to one another fact, so it is related to the other. It’s a link or connection or nexus
between two facts.

Types - Logical relevancy and legal relevancy (Sec 5 – 55)

ADMISSIBILITY

Every fact which is capable of being accepted I court of law, it is an admissible fact. (Sec 56)

RES GESTAE (SEC 6)

In the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the concept of "res gestae" is recognized as an exception to the rule
against hearsay evidence. Res gestae refers to statements made by a person that are closely connected
to a relevant fact and made contemporaneously with that fact. These statements are admissible in court
as an exception to the general rule against hearsay because they are considered reliable and spontaneous
expressions made in the heat of the moment.

The provisions related to res gestae can be found in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 6 states:

"Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and
places."

This section essentially allows for the admission of statements that are part of the same transaction or
occurrence as the fact in issue, even if they are not directly in issue themselves.

Here are a few key points regarding the application of res gestae in the Indian Evidence Act:
 1. Closely Connected Facts: For a statement to be admissible under res gestae, it must be closely
connected to the fact in issue. It should be spontaneous and made as part of the same transaction
or occurrence.

2. Spontaneity: Statements under res gestae are valued for their spontaneity, as they are considered
more reliable due to being made at the time the event occurred, without any opportunity for
premeditation or fabrication.

3. Admissibility as Evidence: These statements are admissible as evidence in court to help establish
the facts in issue or provide context to the case.

4. Application in Various Cases: Res gestae can be applied in a variety of cases, such as criminal trials
where statements made by witnesses or victims at the scene of a crime may be admitted as res
gestae if they are closely connected to the crime in question.

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy has been defined under section 120 A of the Indian penal code, 1860.

When two or more people agree to do any illegal act or any act which is not illegal per se but is to be done
by illegal act, that agreement would amount to conspiracy.

For an offence to constitute as a conspiracy following ingredients must be there-

 An agreement between 2 or more persons

 To do any illegal act
 Or any legal act by illegal means

A mere agreement to do such agreement to do such act would amount to conspiracy and can attract a
punishment even though no act has been done in the pursuance of that agreement.

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or
written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons
believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

It deals with the relevancy of those facts which reveal the details about a conspiracy. The conditions of
relevancy under the section are:
 There must be a reasonable ground to believe that 2 or more persons have entered into a conspiracy.
 The act in question must have been done after the time when the intention to conspire was first
entertained by any of them.
 The act must have been done in the furtherance of common intention.
The special feature about this rule is that anything said or written or done by any member of the
conspiracy is an evidence against the other members even if they are done in their absence or without
their knowledge. The only condition is that act must have been done in the furtherance of common
intention.

The evidence of such an act can be given for the following 2 purposes:

 To prove the existence of the conspiracy

 To show that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy

FACTS NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT (PLEA OF ALIBI)

 The legal maxim Alibi is the excuse usually intended to avert blame or punishment
 Meaning- elsewhere or somewhere else
 Alibi is a defense used under criminal law
 It is used when the accused takes the plea that when the occurrence took place he was elsewhere
 The prosecution has to discharge the burden
 An alibi is not an exception envisaged in the IPC or any other law
 It is a rule of evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act

SECTION 11- When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-
(1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue or relevant fact;
(2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact
in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable

Who can make the plea?

The accused can make a plea of alibi

If he takes the plea of alibi at an earlier stage of judicial proceedings, its credibility increases.

To make this plea the accused must be at a place that is far from the place of commission of the crime
and they cannot be at the crime spot at that time.

When to raise the plea of alibi?

The plea at the earliest possible time in the initial stages of a case; this stage could be at the stage of
fabricating of charge or introductory hearing.

Essentials of the plea of alibi

Commission of a crime punishable by law

The person should be accused of the said crime

The accused must be absent at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the crime.
The accused must be at a place that is far away from the place of commission of the crime and they cannot
be at the crime spot at that time.

Failure to establish an alibi

If the accused fails, it can’t be confirmed that he is present at the crime spot

The obligation to prove it, lies on the side of the prosecution.

Thus, the accused’s failure to prove his/her alibi will not lead to a conclusion that he/she was present at
the crime spot.

When accused makes a false plea

The courts will not decide a person guilty merely based on the fact that the accused made a false plea.

Providing fake evidence to support the plea leads to the suspicion on the accused and the court will be
more careful throughout the proceedings.

When a false alibi is made, it will also create an impact on the entire investigating process.

Case law- Dudh Nath Pandey v State of UP

Factum Probandum and Factum Probans

In legal terminology, "factum probandum" and "factum probans" are Latin phrases used to distinguish
between two important elements in a legal case, particularly in the context of evidence and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872:

Factum Probandum: (Material fact, fact in issue)

Definition: Factum probandum refers to the "fact to be proved." It is the central issue or the primary fact
that is in dispute in a legal case. It represents what the parties are trying to establish or disprove through
the presentation of evidence.

Example: In a criminal case, the factum probandum might be whether the accused person committed a
specific crime, such as robbery. In a civil case, it could be whether a contract was breached.

Factum Probans: (particulars, evidence, relevant facts)

Definition: Factum probans refers to the "fact that proves." It represents the evidence or proof presented
in court to establish or disprove the factum probandum. Factum probans includes any testimonies,
documents, exhibits, or other forms of evidence that are introduced to support the party's claims or
defenses.
Example: In a criminal case where the factum probandum is the defendant's guilt in committing a robbery,
the factum probans might include witness statements, security camera footage, and physical evidence
like fingerprints or stolen property.

In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, these concepts are fundamental to understanding how
evidence is used in legal proceedings:

 The Act provides rules and guidelines regarding the admissibility, relevancy, and weight of
evidence (factum probans) that parties present in court to establish or disprove the factum
probandum, which is the primary issue in the case.

 Sections of the Indian Evidence Act, such as Sections 5 to 55, outline the principles and rules that
determine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, helping to distinguish between factum
probandum and factum probans.

In summary, factum probandum is the main issue or fact in dispute in a legal case, while factum probans
refers to the evidence presented to prove or disprove that main issue. Both terms are essential in
understanding how evidence is used to establish or challenge facts in legal proceedings under the Indian
Evidence Act and in the broader field of law.

Best evidence rule

The "Best Evidence Rule," also known as the "Rule of Primary Evidence," is a fundamental principle in
evidence law. While the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly use the term "Best Evidence Rule,"
the Act contains provisions related to the admissibility of evidence and the requirement to produce the
best available evidence in certain situations. Providing importance to documentary evidence over the oral
ones, the provisions of the Evidence Act establish the fact that it is the documentary evidence that
qualifies the ambit of the best evidence rule in the majority of the cases, leaving behind the oral evidence.

The provision of section 91 states that when evidence is reduced to a document, then no evidence is
required to be given for proof of those matters except the document itself.

Section 91- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been
reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced
to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or
other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its
contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

Exception 1. – When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown
that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be
proved.

Exception 2. – Wills admitted to probate in [India] may be proved by the probate.

(Probate- Probate refers to the legal process through which a court verifies and officially recognizes the
validity of a deceased person's will, and it grants authority to the executor or personal representative
named in the will to administer the deceased person's estate. The primary purpose of probate is to ensure
that the deceased person's assets are distributed according to their wishes, as outlined in their will, and
in compliance with applicable laws)

SECTION-92

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the provision dealing with the exclusion of evidence of oral
agreement. It is said that Section 92 serves as a supplement for Section 91. The provision of S92 states
that “when the terms of any such contract, grant, etc. required by law to be reduced to a document have
been proved accordingly as per section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement no evidence of any oral
agreement of statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms.

The exceptions have been presented hereunder;

1. Validity of documents (Section 92 proviso 1): Oral evidence of any fact which renders that the
document presented is invalid, can be given.

2. Matters on which document is silent (Section 92 proviso 2): If a written agreement is silent during
the time of a price payment, then in such case oral agreement may be proved at that time.

3. Condition precedent (Section 92 proviso 3): If there exists any separate oral agreement that
constitutes conditions precedent to attaching the obligations under the document presented,
then the same may be proved.

4. Rescission or modification (Section 92 proviso 4): Any oral agreement that modifies or rescinds
the document in question, maybe proved.

5. Usages or customs (Section 92 proviso 5): Whenever incidents in a contract are attached to a
particular type of custom or usage, the same may be proved by means of the oral agreement.

Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with the
express terms of the contract

6. Relation of language to facts (Section 92 proviso 6): Any fact may be proved by means of oral
agreement which shows the manner in which the document language is associated with the
existing facts.

Circumstantial Evidence & their importance

Direct evidence is evidence that establishes a fact without the need to make an inference in order
to connect the evidence to the fact.

Circumstantial evidence is the evidence that does not point directly to the fact. A reasoning must
be made or an inference that links circumstantial evidence to the desired fact the party is trying to
prove.
It is not secondary evidence; it is merely direct evidence; it is merely direct evidence applied
indirectly.

Nowadays, circumstantial evidence is more often given more importance than direct evidence,
because more often in criminal law, direct evidence is misused and justice gets impaired.

Case law- Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra

SC introduced one Panchsheel Test for the Relevancy of the Evidences which will be applied in
such type of cases where Direct Evidences are not available.

Importance of Circumstantial Evidence:

 Establishing a Chain of Events: Circumstantial evidence is often crucial in establishing a chain of

events or a sequence of occurrences that may lead to a particular conclusion. It helps build a
narrative that supports the party's case.

 Proving Intent and Motive: Circumstantial evidence can be instrumental in proving intent and
motive, especially in criminal cases. By examining a defendant's actions and behaviors leading up
to or following an event, the prosecution or plaintiff can make a case for the defendant's state of
mind or purpose.

 Corroborating Witness Testimony: Circumstantial evidence can corroborate or support the

testimony of witnesses. For example, if a witness claims to have seen a defendant at a specific
location, other circumstantial evidence like surveillance footage or time-stamped documents can
support the witness's account.

 Filling Gaps in Direct Evidence: In cases where direct evidence is lacking or insufficient,
circumstantial evidence can fill in the gaps and provide a more complete picture of what
happened. It can strengthen a case by adding multiple pieces of evidence that collectively lead to
a conclusion.

 Protection against False Testimony: Circumstantial evidence can act as a safeguard against false
or unreliable witness testimony. It provides an objective and tangible basis for reaching
conclusions, reducing the reliance solely on the credibility of witnesses.

 Solving Complex Cases: In complex cases where the facts are intricate or the evidence is
fragmented, circumstantial evidence can be particularly valuable. It allows investigators and legal
professionals to piece together a coherent narrative.

3. Establishing Guilt or Liability:

 In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt when there may be no
direct eyewitnesses or when the defendant's guilt is not immediately apparent. For example,
fingerprints, DNA evidence, or the defendant's behavior after the alleged crime can all serve as
circumstantial evidence.
  In civil cases, circumstantial evidence can be used to establish liability or innocence when direct
evidence is lacking. For instance, in a personal injury case, circumstantial evidence like the
condition of the road, weather conditions, or the behavior of the parties involved can help
determine liability.

ADMISSION – acknowledgement of a fact by making a statement

Section 17- An admission is a statement, [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons,
and under the circumstances u/s 18 – 30.

It is a statement of the accused which is a direct acknowledgement of his guilt in criminal cases whereas
it is the statement of the person against whom there is a case in a civil matter.

Admissibility simply means the power to approach. Admission can be oral or documentary or contained
in electronic form. Thus, the admissibility of evidence means any evidence or document used in the court
of law to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact.

Types of admissions-

1) Judicial/ formal – made before court of law

2) Extra judicial/ informal- made outside the court of law in ordinary course of life.

WHO CAN MAKE ADMISSION? - Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules regarding
as to who can make an admission. According to this section, there are five classes of persons
whose statements will be considered as an admission in a suit. These five classes are:-

SECTION 18-

 Party to case
 Authorized agent
 Party in representative character
 Person/party interested in subject-matter
 Person from whom interest is derived

SECTION 19-

ADMISSION BY PERSONS WHO’S POSITION MUST BE PROVED AS AGAINST PARTY TO SUIT

As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit are not considered as admissions but Section
19 is an exception to this rule. Section 19 refers to the statements made by a third party as against himself
when it affects his position or liability and when such liability or position is relevant to be proved as against
 the party to the suit. The statements made by the third party, in this case, would only be relevant if the
liability or position of that third party still exists at the time of the suit.

Example-

 A collects rent for B

 B sues A – that A has failed to collect rent from C
 Liability of A depends on whether C owed rent to B or not
 Thus, C can make an admission u/s 19

SECTION 20-

ADMISSIONS BY PERSONS EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO BY PARTY TO SUIT

This section refers to when a party to the suit refers to a third party regarding some information a matter
of dispute. Under Section 20 any statement made by such party will be taken as an admission against the
person who referred to the third party. This Section is another exception to the general rule that
statements made by strangers are not considered as an admission.

RELEVANCY OF ADMISSION-

SECTION 21- PROOF OF ADMISSION AGAINST PERSONS MAKING THEM AND BY OR ON THEIR BEHALF

According to Section 21, Admission may be used against the party making the admission but it cannot be
used by the party who makes the Admission for his own use. This Section further lays down three
exceptions to this rule. These exceptions are:-

 ADMISSION FALLING UNDER SECTION 32: An Admission can be used by the person for his own use if
the person making such Admission is dead. In this case, such admission will be relevant as between
the third person under Section 32. Section 32 lays down that statements made by persons dead or
who cannot be found may be proved if it was made under the circumstances mentioned in the Section.
 STATE OF BODY AND MIND: An Admission made by a person regarding the existence of the state of
body or mind relevant can be used by the person making such Admission if such a state of body or
mind existed.
 STATEMENT RELEVANT OTHERWISE THAN AS ADMISSION: An Admission made by a person may be
used by the person making it if it is proved that the statement is relevant otherwise than as Admission.

SECTION 22- ORAL ADMISSIONS AS TO THE CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS

According to Section 22, when there is a document then nobody can be allowed to prove the content of that
document. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:-
In the case the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of the documents then he can rely
on oral Admission.

In the case where the original document is lost or if it is in the possession of the opposition party, then also
the party may make oral Admission.

SECTION 22-A- ORAL ADMISSION AS TO THE CONTENTS OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS

According to Section 22-A, when there is an electronic record then nobody can rely on the oral Admission
unless there is a question to the genuineness of such record.

SECTION 23- ADMISSION IN CIVIL CASES

Section 23 is only applicable to civil cases and do not extend to criminal cases.

According to this Section, an Admission in a civil case will not be relevant if it is declared that upon the express
condition made by the parties to the suit that the Admission should not be given or under some circumstances
the court infers that the parties have made an agreement that Admissions will not be given.

Section 21 lays down that when an Admission is given without prejudice then such Admission will not be
considered as relevant.

Section 31 deals with the effect of admission in the matter of conclusiveness. It provides that admissions are
not conclusive proof of matter admitted but operate as estoppels. This section gives evidentiary value of
admissions containing in Sections 17 to 30 of the Evidence Act.

Confessions (Sec 24-30)

The confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal offences and such
statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty of a crime.

All confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions.

Section 24- Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceedings

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession
appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the
charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the
Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by
making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings
against him.

Section 25- Confession to police officer not to be proved

No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26- Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him

No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

Section 27- How much of information received from accused may be proved

Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused
of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether if amounts to a confessions or not,
as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Eg.-

Person is accused of an offence and is in police custody

He makes confessional or non- confessional statement

In such statement he discloses about the information like place of hiding of object related to offence (Disclosure statement)

The object is discovered from place of hiding (discovery statements)

Discovery statement is admissible u/s 27

Section 28- Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant

If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or
promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant

Section 29- Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

Section 29 provides that If a confession will not become irrelevant even if it is obtained under the following circumstances-

 a promise of secrecy,
 in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it,
 when the accused was drunk,
 It was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those
questions,
 or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession,

Section 30- Confession of co-accused

Essentials-

 Two or more persons are tried jointly

 They are tried for same offence
 Confession is made by co- accused implicating himself and other accused
 Confession is duly proved against the maker.

Case- kashmira shah vs. state of MP

It was held that confession of co- accused made under section 30 implicating himself and other co-accused is a
substantive piece of evidence against the other co-accused. However, its evidentiary value is very weak and
conviction cannot be solely based on it.
Dying declaration (Sec 32- 33)

Word “Dying Declaration” means a statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person,
who is dead. It is the statement of a person who had died explaining the causes or circumstances
of his death. This is based on the maxim ‘nemo mariturus presumuntur mentri’ i.e. a man will not
meet his maker with lie on his mouth.

A dying declaration is considered credible and trustworthy evidence based upon the general belief
that most people who know that they are about to die do not lie. As a result, it is an exception to
the Hearsay rule.

If the person who made the dying declaration had the slightest hope of recovery, no matter how
unreasonable, the statement is not admissible into evidence. A person who makes a dying
declaration must, however, be competent at the time he or she makes a statement, otherwise, it is
inadmissible. A dying declaration is usually introduced by the prosecution, but can be used on
behalf of the accused.

Section 32: Cases in which statements of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found.—
statement, written or verbal, or relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or
who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an
amount of delay or expanse which, under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:

(1) When it relates to cause of death.

(2) Or is made in course of business.

(3) Or against interest of maker.

(4) Or gives opinion as to public right or custom or matters.

(5) Or relates to existence of relationship.

(6) Or is made in will or deed relating to family.

(7) Or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause (a).

(8) Or is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to matter in question.

Section 33 provides that statements made in the ordinary course of business or in legal proceedings, or
by an authority whose duty it is to investigate such matters, are relevant when the statement's truth is in
question in a subsequent legal proceeding. This includes statements contained in reports, records,
registers, and other documents.
Additionally, statements made by a person in a legal proceeding, if they are relevant to that proceeding,
are also admissible as evidence in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties or their legal
representatives.

In the context of dying declarations, Section 32 is particularly relevant. It allows for the admissibility of
statements made by a person who has since died or cannot be found and who believed their death was
imminent.

Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, in simple terms, says that statements made by
people in official documents, records, or legal proceedings can be used as evidence in a
later legal case if the truth of what they said is in question.

So, if someone said something important in a document or during a legal proceeding,

and that statement becomes important in another legal case, the court can consider
their statement as evidence to help determine the truth of the matter. This is especially
relevant when the same parties or their legal representatives are involved in both cases.