What Is Admission

Sections 17 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 define admissions as

“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.”

It means, an admission is a statement, oral or written, or in electronic form made by a party to a suit or proceeding, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. Admission can be made by a party to the suit or proceeding, or by any person from whom the party derived his title to the property in dispute, or by any person from whom he derived his right to the office in dispute.

Admission may be either self-destructive or constructive (serve own interests). Evidence of self-harm is admissible in a court of law. Silence can also be used to make an admission.

Who Can Make Admission (Section18)

The criteria by which someone may make an admission are outpned in Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section specifies five categories of people whose remarks in a lawsuit will be taken into account as admissions. They are as follows −

By Parties To Proceedings

It is regarded as a relevant acknowledgment when the parties to a proceeding make statements about him. The term "party" as used in this section encompasses both people who are parties to a lawsuit without actually appearing in court as well as those who do so. People who have a stake in the case s subject matter but aren t psted as parties on the record are nonetheless regarded as participants in the proceedings, and their testimony bears the same weight as that of the psted parties. A person who appears as a party on the record but has no actual stake in the matter will also not have any impact on the person he is appearing against through his admission.

Admission By the Agent

An agent s testimony in a lawsuit would be admissible against the party he is defending. However, an agent s declarations are only legally binding if they are made while his agency is still in effect. Any further statements made by the agent won t have any impact on the principal once his right to meddle has ended.

Statements Made in Representative Character

Any statement made by someone who is sued or sued in their representative capacity, such as a trustee, administrator, executor, etc., will only be accepted if it is made in such capacity. Any statements they make in their inspanidual capacities won t be interpreted as admissions.

Persons Interested in The Subject-Matter

Any admission made by a party in a case where multiple parties are jointly interested in the subject matter of the suit will be construed as an admission against that party as well as the other parties involved. It makes no difference whether the parties involved in the dispute are being sued jointly or separately. However, for this rule to be in effect, there must be a prima facie case that demonstrates a shared interest between the parties suing or being sued.

Persons From Whom the Parties Derive Interest

Any testimony provided by the party s predecessor-in-title, from whom the party in the lawsuit gets his title, shall be acceptable. But only if the predecessor-in-title made the declaration while still in possession of the title and not after it had been transferred will this be considered an acknowledgment. If the remark was made after the title had been transferred, it will not be viewed as an admission against the parties.

Types of Admission

Usually admission is categorized as −

Formal Admission

The facts of cases based on formal admissions do not need to be proven because they are judicial admissions. According to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts that have been admitted by a court do not need to be proven.

Informal Admission

Informal admissions are typically casual conversations that are had without thinking that they might be used as evidence in a later lawsuit. among others, with friends and family.

Other Provisions

Section 19

Person Whose Position or Liabipty in Question Can Make Admissions

Statements made by a third party in a lawsuit are often not taken into account as admissions, although Section 19 makes an exception to this norm. When it affects his position or pabipty, and when such pabipty or position is relevant to be proven as against the party to the ptigation, it refers to comments made by a third party as against himself. The third party s remarks in this case would only be pertinent if their pabipty or position persisted at the time of the lawsuit.

Section 20

Admissions by Persons Expressly Referred to by the Party to Suit

This section deals with situations where a party to a lawsuit refers to a third party in relation to a question of fact. Any remark made by such a party shall be interpreted in accordance with this provision as an acknowledgment against the person who referred to the third party. This section again breaks the basic rule that statements made by strangers are not taken into account as admissions.

In order to admit something, one must concede something in their favour. Only admissions, both written and oral, are covered in the sections. The portions do not apply to admissions based on behaviour. Depending on Section 8 and its explanations, such admissions by behaviour may or may not be relevant.

Elements of Admission

According to the definition given above, the following elements must be present there to be admission −

It could be a documentary or oral.

It is a remark intended to imply any inference to any significant or pertinent fact.

It must be created by any inspanidual psted in the Act; and

It has to be made under the conditions specified by the Act.

The admission must be unmistakable and obvious. The following justifies the admissibipty of the admission −

Acceptance as a waiver of evidence;

Admission as a declaration of interest;

Admission as proof of a false statement;

Acknowledgement as proof of the truth

The best substantive evidence that the opposing party can rely on is admission.

Effect of Admission

According to Section 31, admissions are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts confessed, but they may be used as estoppel in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 58, which states that "facts admitted need not be demonstrated," is a further addition to the provision. No facts must be proven in any action, according to the clause, if the parties or their agents agreed to admit them during the hearing, before the hearing, in writing, or by any rule of pleading in effect at the time the facts were deemed allowed by the parties pleading.

The effect of water is known at judicial admissions, according to Section 58. Formal admissions made by a party during the course of a case are called judicial admissions. Legal admissions are legally enforceable against the party making them. They entail a renunciation of proof. Admissions covered by Sections 17 to 23 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act or admissions distinct from judicial admissions A piece of evidence is what the Evidence Act refers to as an admission.

Admission is Not a Conclusive Proof

The best defence for the party making the admission is an admission. entry must be chosen voluntarily. Until it is refuted by the other party or if it changes in pght of the circumstances under which it was stated, an admitted fact is bepeved to be true.

However, an admission can serve as estoppel even though it is not absolute proof of the matter confessed (Section 31 of the IEA). To refute and disprove the admission, one may present supporting evidence.

The admission must be made in the maker s own words and in a clear, exppcit, and unambiguous manner. No statement taken out of context may be considered an admission of any fact; therefore, an admission must be read in its entirety.

Conclusion

Therefore, in both civil and criminal processes, evidence is relevant and essential. It is the most important and necessary component of every process. If the facts are accurate and important, the evidence should always be allowed in court. All of the specific provisions under the code must be satisfied by the proof. At the time of admission, logical and legal relevance should both be taken into account. Therefore, only evidence with a strong degree of probative value should be admitted by the courts.

FAQs

Q1. Is admission direct or indirect evidence?

Ans. In Indian law, an admission is considered as a form of direct evidence. Direct evidence refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for inferences or presumption. It is evidence that directly estabpshes a fact in issue, without the need for any intervening inference. For example, if a person admits to committing a crime, that admission is direct evidence that the person committed the crime.

Q2. What is meaning of indirect evidence?

Ans. Indirect evidence refers to evidence that only supports an inference or a presumption of a fact in issue, and it may not be sufficient to estabpsh the fact. For example, a witness testimony that the accused was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the crime, this is not direct evidence that the accused committed the crime but it can be used as circumstantial evidence.

Q3. Is the admission of evidence procedural or substantive?

Ans. In Indian law, the admission of evidence can be considered both procedural and substantive.

Procedural aspect of evidence can be understood as the rules and procedures that govern how evidence is presented in a legal proceeding. The Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules of admissibipty of evidence, and it is the responsibipty of the court to ensure that the evidence is presented in accordance with these rules and the rules of admissibipty of evidence are considered as a procedural aspect of evidence.

Substantive aspect of evidence, on the other hand, refers to the actual evidence that is presented in a legal proceeding and its relevance to the facts in issue. The substantive aspect of evidence is concerned with the weight and value of the evidence. Once the court has determined that the evidence is admissible, it must then consider its substantive aspect to decide whether it is credible and relevant.