INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

PART – I
CHAPTER – II (17 - 31)
 EVIDENCE ACT - PARTS

PART I PART II PART III

RELEVANCY OF FACTS ON PROOF PRODUCTION &
EFFECTS OF EVIDENCE

Chap I Chap II
S. 1 to 4 S. 5 to 55
SEC 5 – 16 [ Relevancy]
SCHEME SEC 17 – 31 [ Admissions]
of Part I SEC 32 & 33 [ Statements by persons who canot
be called as witnesses]
SEC 34 – 38 [ Statements made under special
circumstances ]

SEC 39 [ How much of statement to be proved]

SEC 40 – 44 [ Judgements of Courts when
relevant]
SEC 45 – 51 [ Opinions]
SEC 52 – 55 [ Character]
ADMISSIONS

• Admission generally means voluntarily acknowledgement of the of

the existence or truth of a particular fact
• IN EVIDENCE ACT – statement only by oral or written or contained in
an electronic form.
• Section 17- 23 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Admission
(A) It may be oral or documentary.
(B) Admission will be relevant only if it is made by any person
specified in the Act. (this list is to be found in Section18)
(C) Admission is relevant only in the circumstances mentioned
in the Act. (Such circumstances are mentioned in section 18-30).
Section 17 & 18

• admission is a statement
• suggesting some inference
• as to the existence of a fact in issue or fact relevant to the issue.

Example – If a person is sued for the recovery of a loan and there

is an entry in his account books recording the fact of the loan,
that is an admission on part of his liability or if he makes any
statement to the effect of that he does owe the money that will
also an admission being direct acknowledgement of liability. It
will dispense with the necessity of any further proof of the fact of
the loan.
Section 17 & 18

Three kinds of Admissions –

i.Formal or Judicial admission – in case – eg.
Statement before magistrate/judge.
ii.Informal and Casual admission – during
medical examination it is told that accident
iii.Admission by conduct – running away from
crime spot
More on Admissions (Effects of 18, 19 and 20)

• Read Section 18, 19 and 20

• list of persons whose statements relevant –
• Statements by parties to suit
• Statements by those identifiable with parties such as agents
• By persons occupying representative character
• Of IIIrd parties
• By persons Having pecuniary interest
• Persons from whom the parties derive their interest
• Persons whose position is in issue or is relevant
• Persons expressly referred to
Section 21 to 23

• 21 – Proof of Admission against Persons Making Them and By or On Their

Behalf
• Admission cannot be used against the party who makes admission for his own
use. But it could be used against the party who makes the admission.
• 22 – Oral Admissions as to the Contents of Documents
• Nobody could be allowed to prove the content when there is a document.
• Some exceptions to this rule are:
• When the party has to give evidence of the contents of the documents through secondary
evidence then the party can rely upon Oral Admissions.
• When the original document is lost then also the party can make Oral Documents.
• 23 – Admission in Civil Cases
• Only be applied to the Civil Cases. Admission is given without any biasness and
prejudice then only admission would be considered as relevant.
 Principles of Admissions
In Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, 1976 SCR - the Supreme Court gave principles regarding
admissions: 
•Any kind of statement in the plaint is admissible in evidence.
•No obligation on the Court to accept all the statements as correct and the court may accept some
of the statements as relevant and reject the rest.
•There is no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions.
•An admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence
against him in other suits.
•Admissions are always examined as a whole, hence they cannot be divided into parts. 
•Any admission cannot be regarded as conclusive and it is open to both parties to show whether it’s
true or not.
•Admissibility of a plea of guilt can be determined only if the plea is recorded by the accused in his
own words. 
•An admission to have a substantive evidence effect should be voluntary in nature.
•Admissions do not carry a conclusive value, it is only limited to being prima facie proof. 
•Admissions that are clear in the words of the accused are considered as good evidence of the facts
submitted.
Confessions

• The interference of the term Confession is from Section 17

• It is nowhere defined individually in the Act.
• A person who is charged with any criminal act when confers some statement
which directly suggests a conclusion is known as confession.
• Confession is mainly of two types-
• Judicial Confession–when statement is itself given in the Court of
Law,
• Extrajudicial Confession– It is when the statement is given anywhere
instead of Court.
• Others – Voluntary & Non Voluntary
Some provisions

• Indian Evidence Act – Sections 24 to 30

• Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 164, 281 and
463
• Section 3 – relevant (whether confessions ?)
• Confessions, as a form of admission, are relevant under
Section 21 of the act against the suspect, unless hit by
rules of irrelevance or Exclusionary Rules of section 24,
25 and 26 of the act or section 162 of Cr.P.C, 1973
Section 24

Statement in question is a confession,

• That such confession has been made by the accused,
• That it has been made to a person in authority,
• That the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat
or promise, proceeding from a person in authority,
• Such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge
against the accused, and
• The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court be
sufficient to give the accused ground, which would appear to him reasonable,
for supporting 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.

Reasons for exclusion - involuntary.

If allowed to be proved in evidence - police would torture.

A confession so obtained would naturally be unreliable. It would not would be

voluntary. Such a confession will be irrelevant whatever may be its form, direct,
express, implied or inferred from conduct. The reasons for which this policy was
adopted when the act was passed in 1872 are probably still valid.
Section 26

Confession While In Custody Of Police Not To Be Proved Against Him

(ACCUSED)
• No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person.
• Object- to prevent the abuse of powers by the police
unless made in presence of a magistrate.
The custody of a police officer provides easy opportunity of coercion for extorting
confession obtained from accused persons through any undue influence being
received in evidence against him.