UNIT II

LAW OF EVIDENCE
2.1 ADMISSION
By: Mr. Anant Singhal
Assistant Professor of Law
DME LAW SCHOOL
 ADMISSION
• According to Section 15 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023:
• "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.”
▪ There are three parts of the definition:
1. It defines term ‘admission’
2. It says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by
any of the person specified in the Act.
3. "Admission" is relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in
the Adhiniyam i.e.,Sections 16 to 21.
• Features of Admission
To constitute admission, the following characteristics are to be
present as per definition stated above:
1. It may be oral or documentary.
2. It is a statement to suggest any inference to any fact in issue or
relevant fact.
3. It must be made by any person prescribed under the Adhiniyam;
and
4. It must be made under the circumstances prescribed under the
Adhiniyam.
• For example if 'A' sues 'B' for recovery of
money and there is an entry in account books
of 'B' that he owes certain amount of money to
'A' then it is an admission on the part of "B"
relating to his liability towards 'A’.
• In Sita Ram Bhan Patil v. Ram Chandra
Nag Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49 Supreme Court
held that a statement in relation to a fact or a
circumstances which is not in issue or relevant
is not an admission. For a statement to qualify
as 'admission' it is sufficient that statement
admits a fact which suggests an inference as to
his liability.
Features of Admission
The admission must be clear and unambiguous. The admission is admissible
because of the following reasons:
a) Admission as a waiver of proof: If a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses
with the necessity of proving that fact against him. It operates as a waiver of
proof. However, admissions constitute a weak kind of evidence, and the court
may reject an admission wholly or in part or may require further proof. Waiver
of proof, thus, cannot be an exclusive reason for the relevancy of an
admission.
b) Admission as a statement against interest: An admission, being a
statement against the interest of the maker, should be supposed to be true, for
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.
c) Admission as evidence of contradictory statement: Another reason that
partly accounts for the relevancy of an admission is that there is a
contradiction between the party’s statement and his case. This kind of
contradiction discredits his case. However, a party can prove all his
opponent’s statements about the facts of the case and it is not necessary that
they should be inconsistent with his case.
d) Admission as evidence of truth: The most widely accepted reason that
accounts for the relevancy of admission is that whatever statements a party
makes about the fact of the case, whether they be for or against his interest,
should be relevant as a representation or reflecting the truth against him.
Whatever a party says in evidence against himself what a party himself admits
to be true may be presumed to be so.
Nature of Admissions
▪ The statements made by parties during judicial proceeding are 'self
regarding statements’.
▪ The self regarding statements may be classified under two heads:
i) Self-serving Statements - Self-serving statements are those, which serve,
promote or advance the interest of the person making it. Hence they are not
allowed to be proved. They enable to create evidence for themselves. ( Refer
Exceptions under Section 19)
ii) Self-harming - Self-harming statements are those which harm or prejudice
or injure the interest of the person making it. These self-harming statements all
technically known as “Admissions" and are allowed to be proved.
 Types of Admissions
The Admissions are broadly classified into two categories :-
1. Judicial admissions or Formal 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. They constitute a waiver of proof. They can be
made the foundation of the rights of the parties. In comparison, the
evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as
evidence, can be shown to be wrong.
These admissions occur when a party makes statements during the
official proceedings of a case, such as statements given to a
magistrate. They are recorded as part of the legal process and there
is no need to prove the facts admitted. Section 53 of the
Adhiniyam says that the facts which are judicially admitted need
not to be proved.
2. Informal or casual, i.e., extra-judicial admissions are those
which do not appear on the record of the case and may occur in the
ordinary course of life, in the course of business, or in casual
conversation. The admission may be in writing (letters, account
books, etc.) or oral. Thus, every written or oral statement by a
party about the facts of the case is an admission. However, unlike
judicial admissions, they are binding on the party only partially
and not fully, except in cases where they operate as or have the
effect of estoppel.
Informal admissions are usually made in casual conversation in
ignorance of the possibility of it being used in future litigation.
For example, with friends, family, neighbor, and so on.
These admissions are of an informal nature and are not
officially recorded in the case documents. For instance, if a
murder suspect, while receiving medical treatment, informs the
doctor about the cause of their injuries, this informal statement
is considered an admission.
3. Admission by Conduct - This type of admission arises from a
person’s behavior or actions. For example, if an individual flees the
scene during a casual police interrogation, their conduct is viewed
as an admission by conduct.
• When and by whom admission is made
• All the statements made by the persons are not admission unless
they are made by following persons in following circumstances
as provided under Section 16-18 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam:
An admission is relevant if it is made by:
1. A party to the proceeding. ( Section 16(1))
2. An agent authorized by such party. ( Section 16(1))
3. A party suing or being sued in a representative character making
admission while
holding such character. ( Section 16(2))
4. A person who has a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter
of the suit during the continuance of such interest. ( Section 16(2))
5. A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their
interest in the subject matter of the suit during the continuance of
such interest. ( Section 16(2))
6. A person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such
statements would be relevant in a suit brought by against himself
(Section 17)
7. A person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for
information in reference to a matter in Dispute (Section 18.)
Section 16 of BSA outlines the categories of individuals whose statements
are deemed admissions in a legal proceeding. These five categories include :-
1. Party to the proceedings - Statements made by the parties involved in a
lawsuit are considered relevant admissions. The term “parties” encompasses
not only those formally listed on the record but also individuals with an
interest in the subject matter, whether or not they appear on the record.
However, individuals appearing as parties on the admissions binding against
others they represent.
2. Authorized agents - Statements made by an agent in a lawsuit are
admissible against the person they represent, but only if these statements are
made while the agency relationship is in effect. Once the agency terminates,
any subsequent statements by the agent have no impact on the principal.
Sri Chand Gupta Vs. Gulzar Singh AIR 1992 SC 123: Agents includes
pleaders, counsel or solicitor and manager of Hindu Joint family. Admissions
made by co- defendants and partners are also admissible.
3. Suitor in representative capacity - When individuals such as trustees,
administrators, or executors litigate in a representative capacity, their
statements are admissible only if made in that capacity. Any declarations made
in their personal capacity are not considered admissions.
Example - as a trustee, executer or administrator or the like, his representative
capacity is distinct from his ordinary capacity, and only admissions made in
the former capacity are receivable whereas statements made before he
acquired the representative character are inadmissible.
4. Party with pecuniary or proprietary interests - In cases where several
individuals share a joint interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit, admissions
made by any one of them are considered admissions against all parties who
share the joint interest. This applies whether these parties are suing jointly or
separately. It’s essential to establish a prima facie foundation demonstrating
the joint interest among the parties involved.
5. Predecessor in title - Statements made by a predecessor-in-title, from
whom the current party to the suit derives their title, are admissible as
admissions. However, this only holds true if the predecessor-in-title made the
statements while still holding the title and not after transferring it. Statements
made after the transfer of title are not regarded as admissions against the
parties in question.
A tenant derives a title from the landlord. Such admissions are relevant if
made during the continuance of the interest of the person making the
statement. Admission of one person is also evidence against others in respect
of privity between them. Here ‘Privity ‘means mutual or successive
relationship to the same right of property.
4. Person having proprietary or pecuniary interest:
Section 16 further provides that persons who have
proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
proceeding can make admissions if they make the statement
in their character of person so interested and during the
continuance of the interest.
Thus, statements of persons who, though not are parties to
the proceedings are also held to be admission if the above
condition is satisfied.
For example: certain goods are consigned for carriage. In
this case the consignor as well as consignee have an interest
in the subject matter. If the goods are lost and the consignee
sues carrier then a statement by consignor that the goods
were properly stowed can be received in evidence, though
consignor was not the party to the proceedings.
5. Persons from whom interest is derived: Under
Section 16, persons from whom the parties to the
suit have derived their interest in the subject matter
of the suit can make admission if the statements are
made during the continuance of the interest of the
persons making the statement. This kind of person
known as 'predecessor-in-title'. A statement made by
him about the property when he was holding such
title is relevant against the parties who have
acquired title from him.
For example, if the question is about the tenancy of
the property the statement made by former owner of
the property regarding tenancy is relevant as against
present owner.
6. Person whose position and liability is
necessary to prove: Section 17 provides the
statement of persons whose position and liability
it is necessary to prove as against any party to
the suit may be admitted as admission. The
principle upon which this section is based is that
if the right or liability of a party to a suit depends
upon the liability of a third person then any
statement made by the third person about his
liability would be admission against the parties.
• For example 'B' employed 'A' as his agent to
collect rent. 'A' fails to collect rent from 'C'. 'B'
filed suit against 'A' for breach of contractual
obligation. Such contractual obligation
depends on whether 'C' is liable to pay rent to
'B' or not. In such a case, the statement made
by 'C' that he owed rent to "B" will amount to
admission against 'A' because if 'B' had filed a
separate suit against 'C' for arrears of rent, then
in that suit, the statement of 'C' that he owed
rent to 'B' would have amounted to admission.
7. Person referred by party to the suit: Section
18 of the adhiniyam provides that persons to
whom a party to the suit has expressly referred
for information in reference to a matter in
dispute may make admission against the person
referring. For example the question is whether a
horse sold by 'A' to 'B' is sound. 'A' says to
'B'-'Go ask 'C, C knows all about it'. C's
statement in such a case is an admission against
'A'.
 • Why admissions are made admissible?
Following are the reasons why admissions are made
admissible under the law of evidence:
Admission is a statement against the interest:
Admissions are statements against the interest of the
maker. It will be highly improbable that the person
will voluntarily make a false statement against his
own. The party can prove self serving statements only
under exceptional circumstances mentioned under
Section 19. Admission as waiver of proof: It is a settled
law that if the party has admitted a fact then it dispenses
with the necessity of proving the fact. This principle has
been recognized under Section 58 of the Act.
However, the court may in certain cases, upon its
discretion, call for proof of such facts.
Proof of admission against persons making them, and by or on their behalf
(Section 19)
▪ Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or
his representative in interest; but they can not be proved by or on behalf of the person
who makes them or by his representative in interest.
▪ General Rule: Admissions will be proved against the person making it and not in his
favour. The general rule is that one cannot prove a statement in his favour.
▪ But section 19 incorporates three exceptions, which, even if being self-serving, can
be proved by the party. These are :-
1. Admissions falling u/s.26: This exception enables a person to prove his own
statement where the circumstances are such that if he were dead, the statement would
have been relevant in dispute between third parties (when veracity is not in doubt it can
be brought).
2. Statement as to the bodily feeling of the state of mind falling u/s.12: The
statement of person’s mind or body is relevant under section 12 and statement narrating
such facts which indicate the state of mind or body made at or about the time when
such state existed and which is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood
improbable.
3. Statement otherwise relevant, then it may be proved as otherwise relevant fact
and not as admissions.
 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 the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the
deed is genuine nor con 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 statement,
because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead
under Section 26, Clause (b).
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.
He produces a letter written by him 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 26, Clause (b).
(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 coins as he
doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did
examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts.
 When oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant
(Section 20)
• Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant
unless and until the party proposing 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.
• Document must be proved by the document itself. But when the
document is not available, then secondary evidence may be given
u/s.60.
▪ Section 54 says all facts except the contents of documents or
electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
▪ Section 58 (v) says oral accounts of the contents of a documents
given by some person who has himself seen it.
▪ Thus, Oral evidence of contents of documents are Not relevant :
• (i) If the party is unable to prove that he is entitled to give
secondary evidence (ii) Unless the genuineness of document is in
question
 Admissions in civil cases(Section 21)
▪ Admission in civil suit is not relevant u/s.21 :
1. Made under express conditions that evidence is not to be given;
For example, If two companies, X Ltd. and Y Ltd., agree to resolve a
dispute through arbitration and expressly state in the arbitration clause
that statements made during the proceedings will not be admissible in
future litigation, then any admissions made during arbitration cannot be
used as evidence in a civil suit.
2. Court infers from the circumstances that both parties agreed
that evidence should not be given.
For example, a husband and wife are negotiating a divorce settlement,
and the husband admits that he failed to contribute financially to the
household. If this admission was made in an informal setting where
both assumed it would not be used in court, the court may infer that
there was an implicit agreement that such statements were not legally
binding.
 Evidentiary value of admission: Section 25
▪ An admission does not constitute conclusive proof of the facts admitted
(Section 25): It is only prima facie proof. Thus, evidence can be given to
disprove it. The admissions thus constitute a weak kind of 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.
The weight to be attached to it must depend upon the circumstances under
which it is made.
▪ An admission may operate as an estoppel: Admission is not conclusive proof
of the fact admitted as it is a piece of prima facia evidence only. But it may
operate as an estoppel. The person can be stopped to deny the truth of the
statement.
Case laws
▪ In Bishwanath Prasad Vs. Dwarka Prasad, 1974, the Supreme Court
made further observations-
1. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves though they are not the
conclusive proof of the matter admitted.
2. Admission duly proved are admissible in evidence irrespective of the fact
whether the party making them appeared as a witness or not.
Evidentiary value of admission: Case laws
▪ An admission shifts the onus on the person admitting the fact on
the principle that what a party himself admits to being true may
reasonably be presumed to be so, and until the presumption is
rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. Thus,
a candidate’s declaration in the nomination form has been held to
be an admission against him.
The burden lay upon him to show that a particular statement (his
age, for example) was not true. Admissions may operate as
‘estoppels’ under Section 25. Where an admission operates so, the
party admitting the fact will not be allowed to go against the facts
admitted. An estoppel will arise under Section 121 when the
admission amounts to a representation that the fact stated is true
and the other party has acted and altered his position on the basis
of that representation.
 Evidentiary value of admission: Case laws
▪ An admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and
the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective
of whether the party making them appears in the witness box or
not and whether that party when appearing as a witness was
confronted with those statements in case, he made a statement
contrary to his admissions (Bharat Singh Vs. Bhagirath, AIR
1966 SC 405).
▪ Accordingly, [Union of India Vs. Mokshi Builders (1977) 1
SCC 68]. where a person was contending that he was not the real
owner of a certain property but he had made statements before the
I.T. Officer that he was the owner of the property, it was held his
admission was direct evidence of the fact of ownership
 Admission: Case Laws
▪ In the case of Ellammal v. Veeraswamy, in a previous suit filed
by the wife for maintenance, the husband made a statement in his
counter reply that she was his wife. In a later similar suit, he
resisted from that statement. It was held that as the previous
admission was against his own interest, it was relevant and
required no proof.
▪ Proof of Admissions: When facts are admitted, they do not
require any proof and they are presumed to be true unless the
contrary is shown.
In the case of Premeshwar v. State certain documents, which
were filed, though not proved by the prosecution, were put to the
accused during the examination u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused
admitted those documents. It was held that the documents can be
held as proved on basis of the admission by the accused.
Admissions in pleading whether can be used in other suits: The
Supreme Court in the case of Basant Singh v. Janki held that an
admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may
be used as evidence against him in other suits, that admission
cannot however be regarded as conclusive and the party can show
it as not true.
Admission vs. Contradicting a witness
▪ The purpose of contradicting a witness in section 148 ( now
Section 151, BSA) and the object of proving admission here is
entirely different.
▪ In case of contradiction, it will be necessary to put the statement to
the witness so that he will have an opportunity to explain it. But it is
not so required in admission.
▪ In this context, Justice Krishna Iyer pointed out that admission is
substantive evidence. While the purpose of section 148 ( now
Section 151, BSA) is to clear doubt on the veracity (accuracy,
truthfulness, correctness, faithfulness, conformity to facts) of witness
and does not become substantive evidence.