ADMISSIONS

Ankit Kaushik
Assistant Professor of Law
SECTION 17

17. Admission defined.––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, hereinafter mentioned.

Questions:
1. What is the value of admissions as Evidence?
2. Can a part of a statement be used as Admission?
3. Is admission made in one case, admissible as evidence in another case?
4. What are the qualities/characteristics of admissible admissions?
VALUE OF ADMISSIONS

 Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 698

Facts: Property Suit. Kishori Lal claimed to be the adopted son of the husband of Chaltibai.
On the question of adoption, Kirshori Lal argued that Chaltibai had admitted through her
conduct that he was the adopted son.
Held: Admissions are not conclusive, and unless they constitute estoppel, the maker is at
liberty to prove that they were mistaken or were untrue.

 Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1972) 4 SCC 683
Facts: Assessment of Income Tax. Some entries in the books of accounts of the company
disentitled the company from claiming deductions. The company claimed that these entries in
the books didn’t represent the exact facts.
Held: Admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is
conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect.
VALUE OF ADMISSIONS

 Thiru John v. The Returning Officer, (1977) 3 SCC 540

Facts: Election petition filed against successful candidate (appellant) contending
that he was below the minimum age requirement. Originally, the onus of proving
the age was on the petitioner, but on proving the admissions of the appellant the
burden shifted on the appellant to prove that he was over thirty years of age.

Held: An admission is a substantive piece of evidence ‘proprio vigore’ and if it is

clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it,
and though not conclusive, is enough to shift the onus on the maker.
ADMISSIONS – WHOLE OR PART

Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) SCR 1091 (3 Judge Bench)

Facts: Corruption case. One of the issues was whether a complaint had been typed by the accused
on Typewriter A or Typewriter B. Evidence was led by some experts who stated that the complaint
had been written on Typerwriter A and not Typerwriter B. The accused made a statement saying
that he had typed the complaint on Typewriter ‘B’ and not Typewriter ‘A’ which was yet to reach
Nagpur. The Lower Courts assumed however that the same had been typed on Typewriter A and
was antedated . The assumption of the Court was based on the partial use of the statement of
accused that he had typed the complaint – and if the same had not been typed on Typewriter B,
then it must have been typed on Typewriter A. They convicted the accused.

Held: Such use of statement of the accused was wholly unwarranted. It is settled law that an
admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part
of it used against him. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. If the statement of
the accused is used as a whole, it completely demolishes the prosecution case, and if it is not used
at all, then there remains no material on record from which any inference could be drawn that the
letter was not written on the date it bears. Supreme Court set aside the conviction.
 ADMISSIONS – WHOLE OR PART

 Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1953) SCR 94 (3 Judge Bench)

Facts: Palvinder was alleged to have poisoned her husband in collusion with her lover and then thrown her body in
a trunk down a well. Very little evidence. Trial Court convicted her under s. 302 and s. 201 based on circumstantial
evidence. One such evidence was the confession By Palvinder that she had given the wrong medicine to the
deceased by mistake and then got rid of the body out of fear of retaliation from her husbands family.
The Court relied on the confession made by Palvinder before Magistrate reasoning that though exculpatory
statements by the accused could not be used as confessions, but the statements are often used as circumstantial
evidence of ‘guilty consciousness’ by showing them to be false and fabricated. This, despite the confession having
been retracted by Palvinder. High Court held that the confession, though retracted, was corroborated by
independent evidence and held that the part where Palvinder had administered the medicine by mistake should
be ruled out of consideration in light of the conduct of the parties. High Court upheld conviction under s. 201 but
not under s. 302.

Held: The Court.. Accepted the inculpatory part of the statement and rejected the exculpatory part. In doing so, it
contravened the well accepted rule regarding the use of confession and admission that these must either be
accepted as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the
exculpatory part as inherently incredible.
ADMISSIONS – WHOLE OR PART

 Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar (1969) 1 SCC 347 (5 Judge Bench)
Facts: Person murdered in train and the accused was caught with blood stained clothes and a
chhura at some distance. The confession was taken before Gram Pradhan which showed that he
was present in the train at the time of murder although he said that he killed the deceased by
accident. He also gave a statement to the Court under Code of Criminal Procedure where he
stated that he killed the deceased in self defence. High Court convicted the accused after finding
inconsistencies between the two. It considered other evidences and the statements minus the
exculpatory part.

Held: All evidences (including his conduct post the death) point towards his having committed
the murder. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory
part of the statement of the accused, the High Court acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory
part and piecing the same with other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was
the person responsible for the crime.
ADMISSION – WHOLE OR PART

 Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam, (1978) 2 SCC 407 (2 judge bench)

Facts: The appellant armed with sharp weapons attacked the deceased. Appellant
contended that the same was in self defence. Evidence against accused included dying
declaration and confession. Contradictions in the confessions led to acquittal of accused
before sessions courts. High Court convicted after doubting the logic of the sessions court.
The confession before the Court admitted that the accused attacked the deceased with a
sharp weapon in self defence. SC said that prosecutions evidence has to be judged in light
of this admission that the accused had attacked the deceased with a sharp weapon.

Held: It is well settled that where a confession or an admission is separable there can be
no objection to taking one part into consideration which appears to be true and reject the
other part which is false.
ADMISSION – WHOLE OR PART

 Hanumant and Palvinder cases followed in Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2014)

12 SCC 133 (2 judge bench)

 Nishikant Jha case followed in Brijlala Sinha v. State of Bihar (1998) 5 SCC 699 (2
judge bench) and Mohan Singh v Prem Singh (2002) 10 SCC 326 (2 judge bench)
ADMISSIBILITY IN MULTIPLE CASES

 Prakash Chand Sharma v. Narendra Nath Sharma (1976) 3 SCC 215

Facts: Property dispute. Defendant claimed share in family property as a being a
part of Hindu Undivided Family. He had admitted in an earlier case that the family
had been separated for past three decades and supported the same with evidence.

Held: The said admission clearly showed that at least since 1921, the parties were
separate, yet the suit for partition by metes and bounds was not instituted for
about three decades. The plaint was drafted in a suppressive manner to claim
partition as if the parties were joint till the institution of the suit. Suit was dismissed.
ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS IN
FOREIGN COURTS
 National Bank Limited v. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal, (2015) 4 SCC 228
Facts: Suit filed in foreign court praying for an injunction against the appellant. The
appellants written statement in Dhaka Court admitting to a fact in issue. The
admission was presented in evidence before a Court in Calcutta by respondent.

Held: The statement made by the appellant can legitimately be taken as an

admission in the Calcutta Suit.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION

1. Admissions extend to questions of fact and not questions of law.

 Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, (1964) 1 SCR 316
Facts: A suit was instituted for the dissolution of partnership without any notice of
dissolution to the partners. Some partners admitted in the written statement that
the partnership stood dissolved as soon as the suit was filed. Section 43(2) says that
“the firm is dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of
dissolution or, if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of the communication of
the notice.”

Held: The admission would bind him only insofar as facts are concerned but not
insofar as it is relates to a question of law.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION

2. Silence does not amount to admission.

 Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi, (1988) 3 SCC 728
Held: It is argued that the accused being a police officer did not object to the
allegations made against him in the remand application. I do not think this
contention requires serious consideration. The averments in the remand application
are only self-serving. The silence of the accused cannot be construed as his
admission of those allegations.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION

3. Conduct of parties amounts to admission.

 Maria Colaco v. Alba Flora Herminda D’Souza, (2008) 5 SCC 268

Facts: The plaintiff had asked the relative who had joint stake in a property to take
care of the property. Relative claimed ownership and sold the property to a builder.
Upon filing of suit, the defendant and builder claimed in their written statement
that they stopped construction for three to four days but started the same again.

Held: The conduct of the defendants went on to show that the defendants were
unsure about their rights in the property by way of adverse possession.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION

4. Admissions may be reasonably presumed to be true.

5. Admission must be clear and unambiguous.
 Nagubai Ammal v. NB.Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451
Facts: Property dispute. The plaintiff claimed something contrary in an earlier proceeding in a different matter.

Held: An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence,
the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made…. Reliance was
placed on the well-known observations of Baron Parke in Slatterie v. Pooley that “what a party himself admits to
be true may reasonably be presumed to be so”, and on the decision in Rani Chandra Kunwar v. Chaudhri Narpat
Singh: Rani Chandra Kunwar v. Rajah Makund Singh where this statement of the law was adopted. No exception
can be taken to this proposition. But before it can be invoked, it must be shown that there is a clear and
unambiguous statement by the opponent, such as will be conclusive unless explained.

 Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi (1966) 1 SCR 606

Held: Admissions have to be clear if they are to used against the person making them.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION

6. Prior statement in one’s interest would not be evidence while prior

statement against one’s interest would be evidence.
 Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmakajaya Raju, (2006) 1 SCC 212
Facts: Election petition. Appellant claimed to belong to a Scheduled Tribe but
described himself as a Kshtariya in earlier documents.
Held: Though in prior statement, an assertion in one’s own interest may not be
evidence, a prior statement, adverse to one’s interest would be evidence. So
election petitioner had managed to prove through appellant’s statement that he
had admitted to being a Kshatriya, but the appellant had failed to prove that he
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.