Admission in Indian Evidence Act


According to the law, evidence is used to prove a person’s guilt or innocence. The term “Evidence” is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the definition, oral evidence includes any remarks or documents that the court sanctions or orders witnesses to present to it regarding issues of fact that are being investigated. Contrarily, any papers, including any electronic evidence, that the court approves or requests in relation to issues of fact are considered documentary evidence.

According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, an admission is any statement made by one of the parties that, in certain situations, raises a reasonable suspicion regarding a fact that is in dispute or another truth that is significant. Admission may be made orally, in writing, or electronically. Any evidence or document used in a court of law to support or refute assertions of fact is therefore considered admissible.
Admissions are regarded as fundamental evidence and are admissible to establish even the contents of written documents without requiring the production of the originals or providing an explanation for their absence. According to the court’s ruling in the case of Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, “Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact which is acknowledged when any prior statement by the party used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence.” The objective of evidence being admissible is to cast doubt on the witness’s credibility.

There are three aspects to the definition of admission:
• It might be oral or documentary.
• Only if it is made by one of the people listed in the Act will admission be considered to be significant.
• Only the situations listed in the Act make admission pertinent.

There are three types of admission:
• Judicial or formal admission.
• Casual and informal admission.
• Admission by conduct.

1. Formal or judicial admissions are those that a party makes while the matter is being heard. An example of a formal or judicial admission is a statement made by a party to a case in front of the magistrate throughout the course of the proceedings.
2. Informal or casual admissions are ones that are unofficial in character and do not appear in the case records. For instance, a murder suspect who was injured disclosed the nature of his injuries to the treating physician. The aforementioned justification was viewed as an admission.
3. Admissions by conduct refers to a person’s decisions based on their behaviour. As an illustration, it would be considered an admission by conduct if a person fled the scene of an informal police interrogation.

In the case of Ajodhya Prasad v. Bhawani Shanker, the honourable court ruled that extrajudicial admissions are only partially binding, in contrast to judicial admissions, which are obligatory upon the parties. In situations where they function as or have the effect of estoppel, this rule is an exception.

Reasons for the Admissibility of Admission
An admission is a pertinent information. Receiving admission in evidence has been justified for a number of different reasons. In Phipson on the Law of Evidence, four of these explanations have been put forth and are being closely scrutinised.
1. Admission as a waiver of proof
The first is that it is not necessary to prove a fact against a party if they have already accepted it. It functions as a proof waiver. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 expressly embraced this approach to some extent. Its clause limits this impact to official admissions made during trials, as part of pleadings, or in connection with the action. This provision only relates to voluntary admissions made with a trial in mind; it does not apply to admissions offered as evidence, which often consist of frank remarks made before a lawsuit was even considered and are not legally binding.

The caveat in Section 58’s principle states that the court may, in its discretion, require the fact accepted before the court by the party or agent to be proved. Whether the court compels the party to prove his admission or not depends on the circumstances. The court has the right to completely or partially reject an admission or to demand more evidence. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the waiver of proof is the only justification for the relevance of an admission.

2. Admission as Statement Against Interest
The second proposed justification for the relevance of an admission is that since it goes against the maker’s interests, it should be assumed to be true because it is highly unlikely that anyone would intentionally make a false statement that goes against their own interests. The relevance of admissions is important for other reasons as well, though. Section 17 merely requires that the statement make some inference regarding the relevant fact or the fact at issue, not that the statement be self-harming. It is irrelevant whether the statement is in the declarant’s favour or not. Self-harming statements are more relevant than self-serving ones since nobody wants to do anything wrong.
However, section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides an exception to demonstrate the self-serving declaration. However, there are situations when a person’s own self-serving remark works against him and can be used as evidence against him.

3. Admission as Evidence of Contradictory Statement
The inconsistency between the party’s declaration and his case is another factor that contributes to the relevance of the admission. Such inconsistencies discredit his case.

Example: A sues B for wrongful possession of land, although the land papers show that B has been granted permission to live there by C, A’s father. Given that it undermines his argument against B, this statement in the land paper constitutes an admission on his behalf. This is only partially accurate, though, because according to the principle, a party can refute every claim made by an opponent regarding the relevant facts of the case, and it is not required that these facts support the party’s position.

4. Admission as Evidence of Truth
The final, most significant, and generally acknowledged justification for why admissions are relevant is that any claims made by a party on the facts of the case whether they are for or against his interests should be relevant as representation or reflecting the truth as against him. In Slatlerie v. Pcoley, Justice Parke B noted that whatever a party claims to be true in evidence against himself, it may be assumed to be true.

In the case of Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, the High Court listed the following guidelines for
• Any statement made in the plaint may be used as evidence.
• There is no requirement that the Court accept all of the assertions as true; it may accept some of the statements as pertinent while rejecting the others.
• An admission made by a party in a pleading is equivalent to other admissions.
• A party’s admission in a plaint that he signed and confirmed can be used against him in later lawsuits as evidence.
• Admissions cannot be broken up because they are always evaluated as a whole.
• Any admission is not conclusive, and it is up to both parties to demonstrate whether it is accurate or not.
• Only if the offender enters a guilty plea in his own words and is recorded, is the plea admissible.
• An admission that has a significant impact on the evidence should only be made
• Admissions simply serve as preliminary evidence and have no conclusive value.
• Clear admissions made by the accused in his or her own words are seen as strong support for the allegations made.

Also Read:  Case Summary: Vinod Kumar Kanojia v. Union of India and Ors. (Dhobi Ghat)

When the facts are connected in a way that makes the existence or absence of other facts likely based on a typical course of events or human behaviour, it is said that the admission is significant. According to the law, no irrelevant information may be used as proof. In common- law nations, the evidence is both gathered and constrained at the same time by the parties’ claims. The Supreme Court noted in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar that the phrases “Relevancy” and “Admissibility,” while occasionally used synonymously, are not the same thing. All relevant evidence, however, might not be admissible, but all relevant evidence is admissible. Both admissibility and relevance have different legal ramifications. The Act’s overseer decides that the relevance standard is the test for admissibility.

The concept of admissibility in the law of evidence establishes whether or not the evidence can be used by the court. Any fact that has been deemed to be legally relevant is then admissible under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. All relevant facts are not admissible, but all relevant facts are admissible. Only legally relevant facts are admitted, making admissibility the deciding factor between relevance and proof.

The Indian Evidence Act of 1872’s Section 20 lists the confessions made by any person who is specifically mentioned by a party to a lawsuit. According to the clause, admissions are any remarks made by a person to whom a party to the lawsuit has specifically referred for facts relating to a topic in dispute. The usual rule against accepting admissions from strangers is also modified in this section.
The relevance and veracity of the fact determine whether or not the evidence is admissible. The evidence is deemed irrelevant, unrelated to the specific case, and not admissible in court. Reliability, on the other hand, relates to the authority of a source that is being utilised as proof.

The court determined in the case of K.M. Singh v. Secretary Indian University Association that the nominees’ statements made pursuant to Section 20 of the Evidence Act would be regarded as an admission by the parties. According to the court, a third party’s perspective must be taken into account when one party makes reference to them in connection with a point of contention.

1. Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
Evidence can only be presented in a criminal trial if it is deemed admissible and pertinent to the facts or concerns. Here, the evidence is utilised to establish the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a legal issue. The prosecution always has the burden of proof to establish the defendant’s guilt, according to the usual rule. What the appellant must prove in order to convict the defendant is set forth by the substantive law in the criminal procedures. In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish against the defendant each element of the crime specified by the Criminal Code.

2. Admissibility of Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Governmental documents, such as leases, sale deeds, rent agreements, gift deeds, etc., are typically offered as evidence in civil cases. The burden of proof in a civil case generally rests with “the party who claims must prove.” In a civil trial, the party asserting a truth is legally required to substantiate that fact. The burden of evidence transfers to the defendant if the defendant disputes the charges and discovers a constructive default, such as a “counterclaim.” However, in civil processes, the burden of proof initially rests with the plaintiff before shifting to the defendant.

Case Laws
1. Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia V. The State
In accordance with Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1876, the court established several “important facts” in this case. The Court ruled that a fact became relevant in a case if it was required to explain or introduce it, or if it supported or refuted an inference, established a person’s identity, established the time and location at which a fact in question occurred, or demonstrated the relationship between the parties involved in the transaction.

2. Ambica Charan Kundu And Ors. V. Kumud Mohun Chaudhary And Ors.
A general rule of Section 11 is governed by Section 32 in the case of Ambica Charan v. Kumud Mohun, “where evidence consists of a statement of a person who is dead and further examines the relevance of such a statement under Section 11. Despite not being relevant or admissible under Section 32, it is relevant or admissible under Section 11. It states that something can be admitted even if it is completely irrelevant, but that whether something was stated was accurate or incorrect is really important.

3. The State of Gujarat V. Ashulal Nanji Bismol
According to the Court, the phrase “admissible and relevant” refers to evidence that is taken into account by the judge when deciding whether to issue a decision; nevertheless, there is no implied or explicit provision in this Act that defines what constitutes “admissible and relevant” evidence. However, it is impossible to say whether or not remarks or documents that are not admissible or pertinent can be entered into the record. Therefore, the Act does not provide that irrelevant or inadmissible information cannot be documented and added to a record of facts if the judge deems it inappropriate. It is not possible to omit or exclude any evidence or information from the record, regardless of whether it is acceptable or admissible.

4. Nagindas Ramdas V. Dalpatram Ichharam
The Supreme Court of India explained the effects of admission in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, stating that admissions are typically true and devoid of any ambiguity and that they should be regarded as the best proof for proving any fact in contention or relevant fact by the admission of certain facts. On the other hand, the casual admissions that are made throughout daily activities only serve to clarify the facts through an oral or written declaration by either side.


Admissibility of evidence is an important aspect of the Indian Evidence Act. It ensures that only relevant and reliable evidence is presented in court. The Act contains several provisions that deal with the admissibility of evidence, and it is important for lawyers and judges to understand these provisions to ensure that justice is delivered.

Subscribe to Latest Posts !


Leave A Reply