Section 15 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides the definition of admission. It defines admissions as follows:-
1. Admission is a statement in oral, documentary or electronic form;
2. Which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact; and
3. Which is made by any of the person referred to in Section 16 to 18 of BSA; and
4. Which is made under the circumstances mentioned in Section 16 to 24 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
So in simple words, admission is a statement which suggests an inference as to the existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact recorded in electronic form.
Admission is a positive act of acknowledment. This formal act of acknowledgment during the proceedings dispenses with the production of evidence by conceeding for the purpose of litigation that proposition of facts as true. 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 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.
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 the following circumstances as provided under Section 16 to 18 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam:
1. Party or his agent: According to Section 16(1), a party to the proceeding or his agent whom the court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized to make admission may make them. According to law of agency, a statement made by an agent in the ordinary courseof business of agency is an admission against the principle. The agent must act within the scope of his authority and the court must be satisfied that the agent was so authorized. The phrase 'the party to the proceeding' in Section 16 includes not merely the plaintiff and defendant in a civil case, but it also includes accused in a criminal case.
2. Person suing or sued in representative capacity: Section 16(2)(i) even allows parties to suits, suing or sued in representation capacity to make admission if the party making the statement is holding that representative capacity while making the statement. Statements made by person in his personal capacity cannot affect him in representative capacity. Representative charachter means that a person is representing other and not acting in his personal capacity.
3. Person having proprietary or pecuniary interest: Section 16(2)(ii)(a) 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 person 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 cosigned 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.
4. Persons from whom interest is derived: Under Section 16(2)(ii)(b), 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 is 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.
5. Person whose position and liability is necessary to prove: Section 17 provides the statement of persons whose position and liability 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 separte 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.
6. Person referred by party to the suit: Section 18 of the Bharatiya Sakshya 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 reason why admissions are made admissible under the law of evidence:-
1. 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 interest. The party can prove self serving statements only under exceptional circumstances mention under Section 19.
2. 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 53 of the Adhiniyam. However, the court may in certain cases, upon its discretion, call for proof of such facts.
Relevancy and admissibility of admissions
Section 19 of BSA provides that admissions are relevant if made against the interest of the maker or anyone acting on this behalf. The principle behind this section is that the admission is evidence against the party who has made the admission and therefore, it can be proved against him. Thus only self-harming admissions are relevant under the BSA. The reason behind this rule of law is that if a man makes certain statements against his own interest, it means that statement must be true. In Bryce v. Bryce, the court held that statements of a living person cannot be received unless they are against their interests.
Supreme Court in CBI v. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 held that admission is not an evidence against others. It is evidence against the person who makes it. Admission may become evidence against the others only when it amounts to confession, then it may be used either under Section 10 or 30 [Now Section 8 or Section 24 of BSA].
For example the question between A and B is whether a certain deed is or is not forged, A affirms that it is genuine and 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.
Exception to Section 19 i.e. when self-serving admissions are relevant
i. If statement is relevant as between third persons under Section 26 and maker of the statement is dead.
ii. Statement of the existence of any state of mind or body at the time of its existence and accompanied by conduct.
iii. If it is relevant otherwise than an admission.
Exception to the general rule: Section 19 further states that admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes it except in the conditions given under that section. As stated above, only self-harming admissions are relevant under Section 19 of the BSA and not self-serving ones. Section 19 lays down three circumstances where self-serving statements can be proved:-
1. If the statement made by the person would be admissible under Section 26 of the Adhiniyam as against the third person if the maker were dead, such statements may be proved in favour of such person. Section 26 deals with statements of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come before court.
For example, ship - owner sued captain of the ship for casting the ship away. It was contended on behalf of ship-owner that the ship was taken out of course. Captain maintained a diary in regular course of duty and made an entry in his favour. Now, in any litigation if there is a question whether the ship was lost due to negligence or otherwise and the captain was dead or cannot be found then the enteries in the diary will be relevant.
2. Where the statement relates to any state of mind or body and it was made when such state of mind or body existed, accompanied by the conduct which renders its falsehood improbable. It enables the person to prove his statement as to state of mind or body. It must be noted that mere statements are not admissible. Such statements must be accompanied by conduct rendering the falsehood of the statement improbable.
Following conditions are required to invoke the exceptions:-
i. Statements should have been made at the time when the state of mind or state of body existed;
ii. Statements should be accompanied by conduct.
For example, 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 influence by fact in issue. [Illustration (d) of Section 19]
3. Where admission is otherwise relevant than as admission. For example, where the statement forms part of same transaction, it will be relevant under section 4 and thus admissible.
Evidentiary value of admission
Section 25 of the BSA provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted against any part but it may operate as estoppel. However, it does not mean that admission of a party is of little value.
Section 53 provides that facts admitted need not be proved. Admission acts as waiver of proof. What a party himself has admitted to be true is certainly presumed to be true, unless it is disproved. In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405 Supreme Court held that admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and admission duly proved are admissible irrespective of whether the party making them appears as a witness or not.
Supreme Court in Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724 held that it is well settled that party's admission fulfilling the requirements of Section 21 [Now Section 19 of BSA] is substantive evidence. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made, it the best evidence against the party making it though not conclusive, shifts the onus on the maker on the principle that 'What party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established.'
Admission can only be made as to point of fact and not point of law. Admission by pleader as to point of law in court does not bind the party. Admission by guardian ad litem does not bind the minor. Admission is an exception to the rule of hearsay. Admission cannot be used in parts. It can be either used as a whole or rejected as a whole [H.G. Narain v. State of MP]
In Ram Bharose Sharma v. Mahant Ram Swaroop (2001) 9 SCC 471, Supreme Court held that a statement which is of nature of admission on a mixed question of fact and law cannot be treated as an admission under Section 17 [Now Section 15 of BSA]. Only admission on question of fact binds the maker and not an admission on question of law.
When silence may amount to admission
Silence may amount to admission, in case where there is duty to speak. Thus, where a duty is imposed upon any person to answer the question and he abstain from answering the same, then adverse inference can be drawn and his silence may be treated as admission. This can be illustrated by referring to Illustration (g) to Section 6 of BSA.
Where the question before the court is whether A owes B Rs. 10000 the fact the A asked C to lend money to him and D told C in A's presence, Don't lend him money as he already owes Rs. 10,000 to B and A remains silent and without saying anything went away, in such a case, A's silence amounts to admission of the fact that he owed Rs. 10,000 to B as it was his duty to speak and rebut what was said by D but he failed to do so.
Formal or Judicial admissions: An admission which is made as part of the proceedings so that it is recorded in the file of the Court is called formal or judicial admission. Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram (1974) 1 SCC 242 held that admission in pleading or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 [Now Section 53 of BSA] stand on a higher footing than evidentiary confessions.
Casual or informal admissions: They occur in ordinary course of life, in the course of business of informal conversations.
Admission in civil cases: Section 21 provides that admissions in civil cases are relevant unless it is made upon express or implied condition that evidence of it should not be given.
Admission of contents of documents
Section 20 provides that oral admission to prove contents of document are not relevant unless:
(a) Party is allowed to give secondary evidence in proof of it, or
(b) Genuiness of document is in question.
Without prejudice 'admissions
Section 21 provides that in civil cases no admission is relevant if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
Admissions covered under this Section are called 'without prejudice' admissions. This section is based on public policy, privilege and confidentiality. Sometimes parties want to settle their dispute through negotiations. These negotiations happen outside Court. If the statements made therein are allowed to be given in evidence as admission then the parties will refrain from settling their disputes outside court. So, in such situations parties may agree that the statements made in such negotiations will not be used as admission in court proceedings. Public policy is served when the dispute is settled amicably.
Explanation appended to Section 21 provides that this section will not exempt any advocate from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Section 132(1) and (2). It means that if during the course of engagement as an advocate etc. advocate comes to know that a crime has been committed by his client after his engagement then advocate can disclose as witness what his client has told him. In such a case client cannot take a plea that disclosure was made to the advocate upon an understanding that they shall not be disclosed in court.
Admissions not conclusive proof, but may operate as estoppel
Section 25 provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained. This provision means that one an admission is made it does not means that the evidence to rebut it or to show that it was wrongly made cannot be given. However, if a person to whom admission is made believes it and acts upon it, then the person making the admission would be estopped from that showing was wrongly made. This provision is to be read with Section 121 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which provides law relating to estoppel.
0 Comments