Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................4
4.1 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15
CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Admission and confession are two very important concepts used in law of evidence by lawyers
to strengthen their cases in the eyes of the jury. Both admissions and confessions are used as
sources of evidence. Section 17 to Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with
admissions and confessions. Though they appear to be similar, there is a narrow line of
difference between admissions and confessions. In simple words, admission is when a person
acknowledges or admits the facts in a statement. On the other hand when an admission is made
by an accused person that he has committed a crime, it is called confession. Confession is the of
acknowledging one's involvement in a crime or wrong doing. However, the definition of the term
confession does not find place in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So far, the definition given
under section 17 of the Act1 for admission becomes applicable to confession also. On close
analysis of Sections 17 to 31, it can be said that statement is the genus admission is the species
and confession is the sub-species. This observation regarding admissions and confessions was
made in the famous case of Sahoo v. State of U.P2.
Since the term confession is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is the
duty of the courts to interpret the term confession. According to Sir James Stephen,
A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating
or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.3
This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit
who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that
confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt.
A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the
facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a
conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession.4
The same was upheld in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and in the case of A.
Nagesia v. Stae of Bihar.5 The term admission is already defined in Section 17 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore do not need much interpretation by the judiciary.
The following chapters of this project will deal with the meaning of the term admissions and
confessions, statements that qualify as admissions and statements that qualify as confessions, and
the major differences between the terms admissions and confessions.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
In this project, the researcher intends to bring out the true meaning of the term admission and
confession as used in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the help of case laws and also to
portray the narrow line of difference through case laws and judgments. The researcher aims in
bringing out those conditions which are to be satisfied for a statement to become an admission
and a statement to become a confession are also discussed in detail. This paper aims in
highlighting the acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning attributed to the term confession by the Indian judiciary to the term
confession?
2. When is a statement considered to be an admission and when is it considered to be a
confession?
3. What are the major differences between confessions and admissions in accordance With
Indian violence Act, 1872?
Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter
in dispute, is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention. 9 The concept behind this is that
nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed
true. For example, unless A stole money from B, it is not normal for A to say that he stole
money from B. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a
person.10
6 Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872)
7 Section 17, Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872)
8 Supra note 6
9 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 148, (25th ed. 2014)
10 Hanumanth Deshmukh, http://hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Admission.html, last visited on (16th March, 2016,
20:18(IST))
In the case of Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail11, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that,
admissions of a party in the proceedings be it in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and
does not need any further corroboration. Also, in the case of Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer 12,
the Supreme Court held that, admission is the best piece of evidence against the party making it
and, though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker based on the principle that what a party
himself admits to be true may be reasonably presumed to be true so that until the presumption is
rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be free. Whatever the case may be the effect of the
admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made. This was held in the case of
E.C.T Farming Society case.13
An admission must be clear, specific and unambiguous and in the own words of the person
making it and has to be proved so. In the case of H.G Ramachandra Rao v. Master Srikantha 14, it
was held that in order to be worthy of being received in evidence, considered and place reliance
upon, an admission should be a clear cut and accurate statement. Admissions can be used in civil
as well as criminal proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating
or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.15
This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit
who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that
confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt.
Lord Atkin took a similar stand in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor and observed
that,
11 Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail, (2012) 8 SCC 516
12 Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724
13 E.C.T Farming Society case, AIR 1974 SC 1121
Thus the court has taken care of the deficiency in the laws and has interpreted the term
confession. The definition of the term confession, thus has evolved from the basic definition
given by Stephen in his digest and has taken more logical approaches in cases starting from the
case of Pakala Narayan Swamy23.
Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act 24 lays down five classes of people who can make valid
admissions. This includes any party to the proceeding, agent authorized by such party, party
suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while holding such character. The
fourth includes persons who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter if the
proceeding during the continuance of such interest and lastly, persons from whom the parties to
the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such
interest.
According to this section, admissions are those statements made persons who are directly or
indirectly a party to a suit. As a result of this, statements made by an agent of a party to the suits
are also admissions. Statements made by persons who are suing or being sued in a representative
character are admissions, only if those statements were made by the party while being in that
representative character. In the case of Roopi Bai v. Mahaveer25, the court relied on the Supreme
Court judgment in the case of Jahuri Sah v. Dwaraka Prasad Jhunjhunwala 26 and held that when a
fact pleaded in a plain is not specifically denied but mere ignorance about its existence is
pleaded, it amounts to admissions unless by necessary implication it amounts to denial.
Similarly, statements made by persons who have a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
proceeding and statements made by persons from whom such interest is derived by the parties in
suit, are also admissions if they are made while the person making the admission had such an
Section 1928 of the Act also says that statement made by persons whose position/liability is to be
proved as against any party to the suit are relevant if such a statement would have been relevant
between such person and the party to the suit if a suit would have been brought by or against
them when the statement was made whilst the person occupies such a position. Also statement
made by a person who has been expressly referred to by any party to the suit is admissible under
Section 2029 of the Act.30
An admission can be proved as against the person making the same or his agent or representative
but such a person is not allowed to prove it on his own behalf that is to say for his own good
except when it is of such a nature that the person making it were dead. In such a case the
statement would be relevant between third persons under section 32. Also an admission may be
proved by or on behalf of a party making it if such a statement consists of a statement of
existence of any state of body/mind, relevant or in issue made at about the time when such state
of body or mind existed and such a statement is accompanied by conduct. According to section
21(3) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if such a statement
was relevant otherwise than an admission for example as under Section 34 entries in books of
accounts or under section 35 which deals with relevancy of public documents.31
Though oral evidence is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 section 22 clearly
states that oral admissions as to the content of documents are not relevant unless and until the
party proposing to present such oral evidences shows that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence relating to the matter. Another case when such oral admission is admissible when the
genuineness of such a document is in question.32
27 Supra note 10
28 Section 19, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
29 Section 20, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
30 Aastha, Evidence Act: Confessions and Admissions, 2 nd March, 2015,
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Evidence-Act-Confessions-and-Admissions-6577.asp#.VuuiW_t97IX ,
(last visited 18th March, 2016 12:16(IST))
31 Id.
32 Supra Note 20
Section 23 of the act lays down the no prejudice clause that is admissions cannot be used to the
prejudice of the party. Section 23 pertains to those situations where in the parties enter into
negotiations and in that process make certain admissions. The section gives discretion to the
court to find out whether the circumstances were such wherein either of the party to the
proceeding or both of them intended to exclude the admission to be proved.33
Section 2637 of the Indian Evidence Act however expands the scope of admissions that may be
treated as confessions. In accordance with this Section, if an admission is in the nature of a
confession and is made voluntarily to a police officer in the presence of a magistrate it amounts
to a confession and can admitted in Court as a valid confession. The object behind this Section is
that, the public interest lies in prosecuting the criminals rather than compromising with them.
A relevant Section does not become irrelevant just because it was made under the promise of
secrecy or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused or hen the accused was drunk
or in answer to questions which the accused need not have answered or in consequence of the
accused not receiving a warning that he was not bound to make and that it might be used against
him.44
In the case of Pati Soura v. State, it was held that self exculpatory statements do not amount to
confessions. In the case of a statement containing a self inculpatory matter, (that is in the case of
It is a usual statement that all confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions.
The underlying principle which governs a confession and an admission is the same and that
principle is that a statement made by a person against his own interest might be true. 45 There is a
narrow line of difference between admissions and confessions. Under the English law,
admissions are used in both civil and criminal cases while confessions are used only in criminal
cases. However, there is no law stating the same in India. As a result the courts have taken the
job of differentiating admissions and confessions.
The acid test that distinguishes a confession from an admission is that, where a conviction is
based on a statement alone, then that statement is an admission which amounts to be a
confession. In those cases, where a statement is admitted but conviction is based on that
statement alone but on placing reliance on supplementary evidence to support the statement
made is admission. This was held in the case of Ram Singh v. State Another 46. The test laid down
by the court is that, if the prosecution relies on the statement as being true it is confession and if
the statement is relied on because it is false it is admission. 47 In criminal cases a statement by
accused, not amounting to confession but giving rise to inference that the accused might have
committed the crime is his admission.
The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. C. Shukla, pointed out the difference between
admissions and confessions as, Only voluntary and direct acknowledgement of guilt is a
confession, but, if it falls short of actual admission of guilt, it may be used as evidence against
the person who made it or his authorized agent, as an admission under section 21.
4.1 CONCLUSION
The researcher firmly concludes that, there is a narrow line of difference between admissions and
confessions. All confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions. Focus has