Admission and Confession: Sections 15 to 25

ADMISSION (15-21, 25)

Admission plays a vital part in judicial proceedings as if in a
case either of the parties to the suit in the judicial
proceeding proves that the other party has admitted the
fact in issues or the relevant facts in the case then work of
the Court gets easier.
Sec 15 - 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.
Admissions have no definite pattern but still, it can
either be formal or informal. The formal admission is
also called as judicial admission which is made at the time
of the judicial proceeding, while the informal admission is
those admissions which are made in during the normal day
to day activity like in the normal course of life.
In, Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam (1974),
the Supreme Court of India explained the effects of
admission, that admissions are generally true and clear of
any ambiguity, and they shall be considered as the best
proof for proving any fact in issue or relevant fact by the
admission of certain facts. On the other hand, the informal
admission which is made during the dayto-day activity just
help in bringing the facts either by an oral or written
statement by the admission of either party.
Admission is positive act of acknowledgment or
confession. It is conscious and deliberate act and not
something which would be inferred.
No acknowledgement or implied admission can be inferred
from silence or no implied admission can be inferred from
silence, inaction, or failure to act. Admission should be in
expressed terms.
In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi (1966), the Supreme
Court stated that Admissions are substantive evidence
by themselves, though they are not conclusive proof
of the matters admitted An admission must be used
either as a whole or not at all. An admission made by a
person cannot be split up and part of it used against him. It
must be accepted as a whole. Any admission made in
ignorance of law or under duress cannot bind the maker of
the admission (Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University,
1975)
Sec 16 - Admission by party to proceeding or his
agent.
Persons who are not parties on the record but who are
interested in the subject matter of the suit are considered
by the law as real parties in interest and accordingly their
admissions have the same weight as though they were
parties on the record, Conversely, a party on record who
has no beneficial interest in the issues of the litigation will
not be permitted to effect by his admission the substantive
right of one for whom he is acting.
Whatever the agent does, in the lawful transaction of that
business, is the act of the principal, the statements and the
admissions respecting the subject-matter will also bind him
if made at the same time.
Sec 17 - Illustration. A undertakes to collect rents for B. B
sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that
rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owed B
rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A
denies that C did owe rent to B.
Sec 18 - Admissions by persons expressly referred to
by party to suit
Illustration. The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B
is sound. A says to B—"Go and ask C, C knows all about it".
C's statement is an admission.
Sec 19 - The principle underlying this rule of law is very
clear, it is natural for a man to make statements in his
favour. If a man makes a certain statement against his own
interest, it means that the statement must be true. On the
other hand, a man wants to make statements favourable to
himself even if the statements are altogether false
Sec 21 - 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
Sec 25 -Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters
admitted but they may operate as estoppels
CONFESSION (22-24)
The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in
the BSA, but according to Sir James Stephen, it is “An
admission made at any time by a person charged
with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that
he committed a crime”.
The expression of confession means any statements made
by an accused which proves his guilt.
“All Confessions are admissions, but not all Admissions are
confessions.”
In State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmad Vakil Ansari
(2013), the SC stated that Admissions and confessions
are exceptions to the ‘hearsay rule’.
Types of Confession:
1. Judicial Confession
A Judicial Confession is that which is made before
Magistrate or in a court due course of judicial proceeding.
A Judicial Confession is relevant and is used as evidence
against the maker provided it is recorded in accordance
with provisions of Section 183 of BNSS.
2. Extra Judicial Confession
An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “a
free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused
of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other
than judge or magistrate seized of the charge against
himself. Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can
be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of
credibility
3. Retracted Confession
A retracted confession is a confession voluntarily made by
a person and subsequently retracted. The retracted
confession may also form the basis of conviction and
punishment if it is believed to be true and voluntary.
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty alias Laxmi
Narsimhan (2001), the Supreme Court said that it is not
law that once the confession was retracted the
Court should presume that confession is tainted.
Non retracted confession is rarity in criminal cases.
4. Confession by Co-accused (Section 24 of BSA)
Illustration:
A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved
that A said – “B and I murdered C”. The court may consider
the effect of this confession as against B.
5. Exculpatory Confession
Any evidence that is favourable to the accused in a
criminal trial, which absolves the accused from his liability,
is considered exculpatory.
6. Inculpatory Confession:
The confession where accused directly admits his guilt is
referred as an inculpatory confession. Any evidence not
favourable to the accused or in other words favourable to
the prosecution is inculpatory
In Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias
Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012), the
question was whether the appellant, who was a
Pakistani national and was caught alive in Bombay Terror
attack, had made the confession voluntarily. The
Magistrate asked the appellant when he was brought
before her when he first felt like making a confession.
He replied the thought of making the confession came to
him when he was arrested by the police. He then added
that he had absolutely no regret for whatever he had
done.
The Supreme Court held that he did not make the
confessional statement from any position of
weakness or resignation or out of remorse. He was
hero in his own eyes and the confessional statement
made by him was voluntary and truthful.
Sec 23- The broad ground for not admitting
confessions made to a police officer is to avoid the
danger of admitting a false confession [Paulose v.
State of Kerala (1990)].