ADMISSION

• Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872 pertain to admissions and

confessions. These sections define them and also, the admissibility
and inadmissibility of admissions/confessions. An analysis of the
aforesaid provisions reveals, that an admission or a confession to be
relevant must pertain to a “fact in issue” or a “relevant fact”
• Admissions and confessions are exceptions to the “hearsay” rule.
• According to STEPHEN, “An admission is a statement, oral or written,
suggesting an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant or deemed
to be relevant to any such fact, made by or on behalf of any party to
any proceeding”
An ‘admission’ is a statement of fact which waives or dispenses with the production
of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. Admissions
are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the
matter in dispute, whether by acts, speech, or writing, which is clearly inconsistent
with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue.

Jodhya Prasad Bhargava v. Bhawani Shankar Bhargava, AIR 1957 All 1

Admission is confession or voluntary acknowledgement, made by a party or some
one identified with him in legal interest, of the existence of certain facts which are in
issue or relevant to an issue in the case. The predominant characteristic of this type
of evidence consists of its binding character. Admission can be made the foundation
of the rights of the parties
• The definitional part of Section 17 states that "an admission is a statement, oral or
documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact".
• Section 18 says that admissions can be made in any "proceeding". The reference to "any
inference" shows that the definition is neutral in character in the sense that it covers not
only the statement that goes against the interests of the maker but also statements that
are self-serving.
• As pointed out by the Law Commission of India, "although in popular language, the
expression 'admission' is used to connote a statement against one's interests, that is not
the meaning given to it in the Act." In fact, Section 21 treats a self-serving statement also
as an admission as is evident from its Illustration (d) which states:
A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that
he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are
admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
• Admissions can be made not only in civil proceedings but also in criminal
proceedings.
• Under English law the term 'admission' is used only in civil cases and all admissions
in criminal proceedings are called 'confessions'.
• However, in India confessions as well as admissions falling short of confessions can
be made in criminal proceedings.
• However, the definition in Section 17 is incomplete as Section 17 refers to the
provisions that follow it for identifying the persons by whom and the circumstances
in which the admissions can be made.
• Sections 18, 19 and 20 deal with persons whose statements are considered as
admissions and Sections 21, 22 and 23 prescribe the conditions in which the
admissions can be proved.
 CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSIONS
• (1) Oral and Documentary
• Section 17 defines admissions as statements "oral or documentary" and, generally, the Evidence Act does
not indicate any preference for the documentary vis-à-vis oral admissions. In most cases the difference
might lie more on the reliability of a particular admission than whether it is written or oral. But, when it
comes to the question of proving the contents of a document,
• Section 22 provides that the oral admissions of its contents are inadmissible "unless and until the party
proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such
document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in
question.“
• (2) Statement and Conduct
• The question whether "conduct" as such can be treated as amounting to statement and the interface
between statement and conduct under the Evidence Act have to be looked at from different perspectives.
• A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell
them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue
•
• (3) Self-serving and Self-harming
• Suppose the question is whether A borrowed a sum of money from B. The implications of Section 17 can be
analyzed by taking two different sets of admissions as examples.
• (1) The account book of A contains an entry that a certain amount of money was received from B. The account
book of B contains an entry showing that he lent the sum of money to A on a certain day. Both the entries are
statements that "suggest an inference" that B did lend the money to A and, hence, are admissions within the
meaning of Section 17 .
• (2) The account book of A contains no entry regarding the receipt of money from B. The account book of B,
however, contains an entry showing that he lent the sum of money to A on a certain day. Here also both the
entries suggest an inference as to the question in issue but with the difference that B's account book suggests
the inference that he lent the money but A's account book denies that inference. So, technically, both are
admissions in terms of Section 17
Satrucharla Vijayarama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju, (1996) 1 SCC 212
• The Supreme Court observed: "Though in a prior statement, an assertion in one's own interest may not be
evidence, a prior statement adverse to one's interest would be evidence. Indeed, it would be the best evidence
Formal or Judicial and Non-formal or
Evidentiary Admission
• If a party admits, for instance, in the pleading (Plaint, and Written Statement or "counter") that
he executed a document, it is a formal or judicial admission; and if the admission is made, for
instance, in a letter to a friend, it is a non-formal or evidentiary admission. Section 17 does not
make any distinction, in the matter of relevancy, between admissions made in pleadings (Formal)
and admissions made otherwise (Non-formal). Section 58 of Evidence Act deals with formal
admissions and they are discussed under that section.
Nagin Ramdas v. Balpatram Ichcharam, (1974) SCC 242, at p. 252 .
The Supreme Court pointing out the difference between the two kinds of admission in the matter of
weightage observed:
• Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58, made by their parties
or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary
admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding upon the party that makes them and
constitutes a waiver of proof...On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at
the trial as evidence, are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong
 USE OF ADMISSION
An admission can be used for two purposes:
1. An admission made by a party is a substantive piece of evidence against him; as the Supreme Court said: "Admissions as defined in
Sections 17 and 20 and fulfilling the requirements of Section 21 are substantive evidence, proprio vigore. (By its own force or vigor.)
An admission is the best evidence against the party making it...“
In Slatterie v Pooley , it was observed: "What a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so." An admission is
"though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous."
2. An admission as a former statement made by a witness can be used for the ancillary purpose of corroborating him under Section 157
or contradicting him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act .

In Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwaraka Prasad , the Supreme Court (per V.R. Krishna Iyer J.), disagreeing with a series of earlier decisions,
pointed out the difference between the two uses of admission as follows:
• There is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of prior statement and a witness who is examined and is sought to
be discredited by the use of his prior statement.
• In the former case an admission by a party is substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of Section 21 ; in the latter case a prior
statement is used to discredit the credibility of witness and does not become substantive evidence.
• In the former there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is
evidence proprio vigore; in the latter case the Court cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of the prior
contradictory statement unless it has been put to him, as required by Section 145.
• In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi ,
• it was held that the effect of admission is to shift the burden of proof and it is for the person making the admission to explain and it
was not necessary that it should be put to him in cross-examination under Section 145.
 WHO CAN MAKE ADMISSIONS?
• Section 18 provides:
S. 18 . Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.--Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an
agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly
authorized by him to made them, are admissions. By suitor in representative character.--Statements made by
parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the
party making them held that character.
• Statements made by-
(1) party interested in subject matter.--persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-
matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; or
(2) person from whom interest derived.--persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest
in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the
persons making the statements.
Under Section 18 the following persons can make admissions:
(1) a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party,
(2) parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character;
(3) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who
make the statement in their character of persons so interested,
(4) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit.
 ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTIES
Sections 19 and 20 deal with admissions made by persons who do not have any direct connection with the matter in dispute or, in other
words, persons who may be called third parties. The two sections are exceptions to the general rule that admissions by strangers to the suit or
"occasional admissions" are not admissible in evidence.
However, an admission to be relevant under these sections, it should fulfill the conditions laid down in Sections 17 and 21 .
S.19. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit.--Statements made by persons whose position or liability
it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in
relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such
position or is subject to such liability.
Illustration
• 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 a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
• In the above illustration, A's liability to collect rent from C depends upon C's liability to pay rent to B. If, hypothetically, B filed a suit against C
for recovery of rent due from him, C's admission that he is liable to pay rent to B would have been admissible as against C. So, Section 19
says that C's admission would be admissible in the suit filed by B against A for not collecting rent from C, and B's contention that C is not
liable to pay will fail as C admitted that he has to pay. In the suit between B and A, C is a stranger but his admission is made relevant because
if there was a suit between B and C, the latter's admission would have been relevant.
• The noted author Field gives the following example:
A and B are jointly liable for a sum of money to C. C brings an action against A alone. A objects that he cannot singly or severally be liable and
that B should be joined as a co-defendant by being jointly liable. An admission by B to his joint liability is relevant between A and C.
• Section 20 provides:
S. 20 . Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party in suit.--Statements made by person to whom a
party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration
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 an admission.
The illustration is taken from the English case, Williams v Innzs , where Lord Ellen borough remarked; "If a man
refers another upon any particular business to a third person, he is bound by what this third person says or
does concerning it as much as if that had been said or done by himself". In the above illustration, C's position
is that of what is called in English law a "referee" and if C says that the horse is not "sound", the admission is
binding on A as he himself put C in his own shoes by referring B to C. Stephen opined that the "referee" is in
the position of an arbitrator as it has been held by English Courts that the referee's admission was conclusive
on A. However, under the Indian Evidence Act, while C's admission is binding on A, it is not conclusive as
under Section 31 . A can still show that C was wrong in his assessment of the quality of the horse.
• Section 21 is an important provision which lays down the conditions and circumstances in which an admission can be
proved. The section says: S. 21 . Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.--Admissions
are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot
be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following
cases:-
• (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person
making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32 .
• (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence
of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and
is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
• (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
• Illustrations
• (a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is
forged.
• A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that 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. (b) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away.
• Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course.
• A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to
day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible
between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32,clause (2). (c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces
a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day.
• The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2). (d) A is
accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.
• A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue. (e) A is
accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful
person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that that person did examine it and told him it was
genuine.
• A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.
• As mentioned in the discussion under Section 17, the definition of "admission" therein is neutral in the sense that it includes self-serving
as well as self-harming admissions. It is Section 21 (1) which lays down the basic principle that "admissions are relevant and may be proved
as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who
makes them or by his representative in interest." In other words, self-harming admissions can be proved by a party but not self-serving
admissions. Illustration (a) explains this principle. The rationale of Section 21 has been mentioned above under the classification of
admissions into self-serving and self-harming admissions.
• Section 21 mentions three exceptions to the above principle and under these exceptions self-serving admissions can be proved by the
person making them.
•
• CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSIONS Exception (1)
• The illustration (b) says: A, the captain of the ship is tried for casting the ship away, that is, allowing it to drift away
from its course or route. A wants to adduce in evidence the logbook maintained by himself wherein the details of the
cruise and course followed by the ship are recorded in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of proving that
he did not cast the ship away. As the logbook is maintained by the captain himself, the entries therein are self-serving
statements and would have been barred under the opening part of Section 21 . But as the entries in the logbook are
made in the ordinary course of business, they would have been relevant under Section 32 (2) between third parties if
the captain were dead, not found etc.Section 21 makes an exception in this case for the reason that the statement in
the logbook, though a self-serving one, might be true as it satisfies the two safeguards of Section 32(2) that are:
• (a) the entry was made in the ordinary course of business; and (b) the book was kept in the ordinary course of
business. In the case of this particular illustration, two other features are noteworthy. Firstly, the captain did not
know, at the time he made the entries, that they were self-serving. But, as it has been held, admissions are
admissible even though, when made, they were not against the party's interests35 and though the party was
unaware of its implications. Secondly, the entries in the logbook were made at a time when the controversy had not
arisen--i.e., ante litem motam
• However, the admissions are only declared to be admissible by Section 21 by lifting the bar, but they are not, as
provided by Section 31, conclusive of what they state.
Exception (2)
• The second exception relates to:
statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue,
made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and
is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
Section 14 declares that "facts... showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when
the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant." Thus, while Section
14 deals with "facts", Section 21, exception relates to "statements" showing the state of mind etc., and Section
21 also applies the safeguard of Section 8 that a mere statement is not relevant unless it is accompanied by
conduct, with the additional condition that the statement should be contemporaneous with the feeling and such
as to render the falsehood of the statement "improbable". Illustration (d) says:
• A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell
them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
• The reason given above for permitting the statements is that "they are explanatory of conduct influenced by
facts in issue." This sounds almost like an illustration to Section 8 as what is relevant under Section 8 is conduct
whereas under Section 21 it is the statement whose veracity is established by conduct accompanying it.
Illustration (e) which deals with the state of mind of the person who is accused of possessing a counterfeit coin
states that the "facts" that he got the coin tested by an expert and that he assured him of its genuineness can
be proved under Section 21 .
• Exception (3)
• The third exception says that a self-serving admission may be proved
by its maker "if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission." In other
words, what is inadmissible under Section 21 may be admissible
under some other section and the bar of Section 21 will not apply to
such a case. This exception is mentioned only out of abundant caution
because it goes without saying that if a statement is relevant
otherwise than as an admission under some other section of the
Evidence Act, such a statement will be relevant under that other
section.