What is the Admission in Evidence Act?
Admissions are defined in Sections 17 to 31 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act, 1872. General admittance is the subject of Sections 17 to 23, while confession is the subject of Sections 24 to 31. A confession is a valid and admissible admission of culpability by the accused in a criminal case.
Admission in evidence act can be either self-harming or self-serving (serve own interest). Evidence of self-harm is admissible in a court of law. Admission can also be accomplished through silence.
Section 17- An admission is a statement, whether oral, documentary, or in electronic form, that implies any inference regarding the fact in issue or relevant fact. It is made by any of the individuals or entities mentioned below, and it is made under the circumstances outlined below.
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
There is no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions in Section 17 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act, 1872. An admission made by a party in a plaint that is signed and verified by the party may be used as evidence against them in other pending lawsuits under Bangladeshi law. In other lawsuits, this admission is not considered conclusive and the party has the opportunity to demonstrate that it is inaccurate.
The plaint contains all of the statements that are admissible as evidence. Nevertheless, the court is not obligated to take all of the statements as accurate. Some of the statements may be accepted by the court, while the remainder may be rejected.
[The court rejected the statements that were against the plaintiff in the current case due to other circumstances.]
Admission Types in the Evidence Act: formal admission pursuant to the Evidence Act
In the event that formal admissions are judicial admissions, there is no requirement to substantiate the admitted facts. According to Section 58 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act, the truths that have been judicially admitted do not require proof.
The Act on Informal Admissions in Evidence
Whereas Informal Admissions are typically made in casual conversation without consideration of the potential for their use in future litigation. For example, with family, acquaintances, neighbors, and so forth.
Admission as a Form of Proof Waiver
The admission of a fact by the parties is equivalent to a renunciation of the burden of proof for that fact. There is no requirement to provide evidence to substantiate a fact that a party independently acknowledges.
Admissions When Acceptable
- Admission must pertain to the subject matter.
- Admission must always be in the form of a self-harming statement or form.
- Admission is required to be made by individuals and in the circumstances specified in Sections 18 to 20 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act.
Who has the authority to admit individuals?
The regulations governing the eligibility of individuals to make an admission are outlined in Section 18 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act. In accordance with this section, there are five categories of individuals whose statements will be regarded as an admittance in a lawsuit. The five divisions are as follows:
Participant in the proceedings
In the Evidence Act, the statements made by the parties to a proceeding as against themselves are regarded as relevant admissions. The term “parties” in this Section encompasses not only the individuals who are present on the record in that capacity, but also those who are parties to a lawsuit without appearing. Persons who are not parties on the record but have an interest in the subject matter of the suit are also deemed parties in the proceedings, and their statements are of the same relevance as those of the parties on record. In the same way, an individual who, despite being listed as a party on the record, lacks a genuine interest in the subject matter will not have any impact on the individual on whose behalf they are appearing.
By the authorized emissary of the aforementioned party
The statements made by an agent in a lawsuit would be admissible against the individual they are representing. Nevertheless, the statements made by an agent are only legally binding if they are made during the duration of his agency. Therefore, any statement made by the agent after the termination of his right to interfere will have no impact on the principal.
The suitor is a representative character, as evidenced by his tenure in that role.
If an individual, such as trustees, administrators, or executors, is sued or is sued in a representative capacity, any statement they make will only be admissible if it is made in their representative capacity. In accordance with the Evidence Act, any declarations made by them in their personal capacity will not be considered an admission.
A party with proprietary or monetary interests
In a case where multiple parties are jointly interested in the subject matter of the suit, any admission made by one of the parties will be considered an admission against themselves and the other parties who are jointly interested in the subject matter. It is irrelevant whether the parties who are jointly interested in the subject matter are litigating or being sued jointly or separately. Nevertheless, in order for this rule to be enforced, a prima facie foundation must be established that demonstrates the existence of a joint interest between the parties who are litigating or being sued.
Title predecessor (the individual who held the title prior to me.
The statement of the predecessor-in-title, from whom the party to the petition derives their title, will be admissible. However, this will only be considered an admission under the Evidence Act if the declaration was made by the predecessor-in-title while the title was still in their possession, rather than after the title had been transferred. The statement made by the former proprietor will not be regarded as an admission against the parties if it was made after the title has been passed.
Section 19 pertains to the admissions that may be made by the individual whose position or liability is under scrutiny.
Section 19 is an exception to the general rule that statements made by a third party to a suit are not regarded as admissions. It is the term used to describe the statements made by a third party against themselves when they have an impact on their position or liability, and when this liability or position is pertinent to the evidence in the suit against the party. The statements made by the third party in this instance would only be pertinent if the liability or position of the third party is still in effect at the time of the suit.
Section 20 pertains to admissions made by individuals who are explicitly identified by the party in question.
When a party to the suit refers to a third party regarding information that is a subject of dispute, this section deals with the situation. Under this section, any statement made by the party in question will be considered an admission against the individual who referred to the third party. This Section is an additional exception to the general rule that statements made by strangers are not regarded as an admission.
Admission involves concedering a point in favor of the individual who is making the admission. The sections exclusively address admissions, both written and verbal. The sections do not address admissions by conduct. Section 8 and its Explanations determine the relevance of such admissions by conduct.
Recognition of Its Evidentiary Value
Admission is not conclusive proof of the fact that has been confessed; rather, it is a piece of prima facia evidence. However, it may serve as an estoppel. The individual may be halted in order to refute the veracity of the assertion.
The admissions discussed in this section are referred to as evidentiary admissions, which are admissions for which evidence can be provided. The witness is permitted to testify in court that he observed such and such an individual utter such and such a statement. Another category of admissions, known as formal admissions, is addressed in Section 58 of the Act. These are intentionally made in relation to the matters at issue, which are currently before the court; however, evidentiary admissions are not made with the specific litigation in mind.
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Banarasi Das v. Kanshi Ram that “it is a weak type of evidence, and the court may reject it if the contrary is proven.”
The Supreme Court addressed additional observations in Bishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarka Prasad, 1974.
1. Admissions are substantive evidence in their own right, although they do not provide conclusive proof of the matter that has been confessed.
2. Admissions that have been satisfactorily established are admissible in evidence, regardless of whether the individual who made them served as a witness.
3. Clarification: Admissions will be admissible regardless of whether the party is summoned as a witness.
The purpose of contradicting a witness in Section 145 and the object of proving admission in the Evidence Act are wholly distinct in this context. In the event of a contradiction, it will be necessary to present the statement to the witness in order to allow him or her to provide an explanation. However, it is not a prerequisite for admission.
Justice Krishna Iyer emphasized that admission is substantive evidence in this context. Although the objective of section 145 is to eliminate any uncertainty regarding the witness’s veracity (accuracy, truthfulness, correctness, faithfulness, conformity to the facts), it does not qualify as substantive evidence.
In the case of Tara Singh v. State,[5] the court determined that:
The evidence from the committal court is ineligible for use in the Sessions Court unless the witness is confronted with their previous statement, as mandated by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Certainly, the witness may be subjected to cross-examination regarding the preceding statement, and this cross-examination may be employed to undermine his testimony in the Sessions court. If that fulfills the prosecution’s objective, no further action is necessary. However, if the prosecution intends to proceed and present the witness with the portions of the previous testimony that are intended to contradict him as substantive evidence, the witness must be confronted. Substantive evidence under Section 288 may only be introduced after this point.
Admission as Estoppel
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matter acknowledged, according to Section 31 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act. However, they may serve as an estoppel. A person is unable to deny the fact that they have confessed in court. In the event that it is interpreted as estoppel, the regulations of Sections 115-117 of the Bangladeshi Evidence Act will be applicable.
In evaluating the value to be ascribed to an admission, it is essential to consider the admission as a whole. However, it is not necessary for the admission to be either believed or disbelieved as a whole. Individual components of the admission may be believed while others are disbelieved. Although statements contained in a book cannot be regarded as definitive admissions, they can be interpreted as supplementary circumstances in conjunction with other factors.
What is the time frame for establishing admissions?
Admission may be employed against the party that makes the admission, but it cannot be employed by the party that makes the admission for their own benefit, as stipulated in Section 21. This section also establishes three exceptions to this rule. The following are exceptions:
1. Admissions falling under Section 32: This exception allows an individual to substantiate their own statement in cases where the circumstances are such that the statement would have been relevant in a dispute between third parties if the individual were deceased (when the veracity of the statement is not in doubt).
2. Statement regarding the bodily sensation of the state of mind that is covered by Section 14: The statement regarding the mind or body of men is relevant under Section 14, as is the statement that recounts facts that indicate the state of mind or body at or around the time of the state’s existence and is accompanied by conduct.
3. If the statement is otherwise pertinent, it may be established as a fact that is otherwise relevant, rather than as an admission.
No, a statement that is of the nature of an admission in the Evidence Act on a combined question of fact and law cannot be considered an admission under Section 17, as only an admission of fact binds the maker, not an admission on a question of law.
An admission made by an individual, regardless of whether it constitutes a confession or not, cannot be divided and a portion of it used against them. An admission must be utilized either in its entirety or not at all.[8]
Admissions in Cases of Irrelevantity [Ss.22, 22-A, 23]
When Oral Admissions Regarding Document Contents Are Relevant:
In accordance with Section 22, the content of a document cannot be proven by any individual. Nevertheless, there are a few exceptions to this rule:
If the party is entitled to provide secondary evidence regarding the contents of the documents, they may rely on oral admission.
The party may also make an oral admission in the event that the original document is lost or in the possession of the opposition party.
One of the donors argued that he was a minor at the time of the deed’s implementation in the context of a gift deed. In the deed, he declared that he was 22 years old. His statement in the deed was deemed to obligate him. It was his responsibility to demonstrate that he was not in the majority at that time. Nine
The document must be substantiated by the document itself. However, in the event that the document is unavailable, secondary evidence may be presented in accordance with Section 65.
Oral evidence may be used to establish all facts, with the exception of the contents of electronic records or documents, according to Section 59.
According to Section 63(5), oral accounts of the contents of a document are provided by an individual who has observed it.
When Oral Admissions Regarding the Contents of Electronic Records Are Relevant
IT Act 2000 inserted Section 22A. Only oral admissions regarding the contents of electronic records are pertinent when the authenticity of the electronic records is in question.
When Is Admission Relevant in Civil Cases?
Section 23 – In the event that there is an express or implied agreement that evidence of admission will not be presented to the court, it will not be produced. It is simply to motivate the parties to resolve their dispute in a manner that is completely unrestricted, allowing them to explore a variety of perspectives.
It is exclusively pertinent to civil cases and does not apply to criminal cases. This Section stipulates that an admission in a civil case will be rendered irrelevant if the court determines that the parties to the suit have explicitly stipulated that the admission should not be granted, or if the court infers that the parties have reached an agreement that admissions will not be granted under certain circumstances.
Section 21 establishes that an Admission will not be deemed pertinent if it is given without prejudice.
