![]() Personal Website of R.Kannan |
Home | Table of Contents | Feedback |
articles - Indian Evidence Act |
be proved) (Sections 5 to 28) Stated in a nutshell whenever a fact, either by itself or in connection with other facts, makes the legal inference of existence or non-existence of facts, such facts become relevant and may be proved. This is stated in detail in chapter II of the act comprising sections 5 to 55. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts (Section 5). And on no other. What are relevant facts? These are explained in the subsequent sections.
Definition of Admission An admission is a statement of fact, which waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter in dispute, whether by acts, speech, or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. Admissions are very weak kind of evidence and the Court may reject them if it is satisfied from other circumstances that they are untrue The Supreme Court in the case Thiru John Vs. Returning Officer AIR 1977 SC 1724 has observed that admissions as defined in Sections 17 and 30 and fulfilling the requirements of Section 21 are substantive evidence. An admission is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker 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 true. An admission must be examined as a whole and not in parts [(1979) 1 SCR 664]. It is settled law that an admission of any party has to be read in its entirety and no statement out of context can constitute admission of any fact. An admission in so far as facts are concerned would bind the maker of the admission but not in so far as it relates to a question of law Section 18 of the Act lays down five classes of persons who can make admissions-
are relevant? (Section 22& 22A) Oral admissions as to the contents of a document or electronic record are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document or electronic record produced is in question. Oral admissions as to contents of a document are excluded under this provision. They are, however, admissible when the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under Sections 65 and 66. Such admissions are also admissible when the genuineness of the document produced is in question. In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made
The word Confession has not been defined anywhere in the Evidence Act. As per Stephen, "A Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime." A confession is a statement, which either admits in terms the offence or at any rates substantially all the facts, which constitute the offence. In other words, confession is direct or express acknowledgement of guilt. (Section 24 & 28) Section 24 of the Act says that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. If such a confession is made after the impression caused by such impression, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed, it is relevant (Section 28) According to Section 24, a confession by an accused is irrelevant if it is caused by - Inducement; Threat; or Promise.
Mere exhortations to tell the truth do not exclude subsequent confessions, the accused might be urged 'to tell the truth' in such a way or tone as to give him clearly to understand that the best thing he could do to avoid harm would be to confess, and a confession so obtained might fall within the scope of this Section. The offer of the slightest inducement or promise or threat affects its voluntary character and vitiates the confession. If the confession is true but involuntary, it must be excluded. Hence, a confession is relevant-
(Sections 25-27) Section 25 of the Act says, "No confession made to a Police-Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." The broad ground for not admitting confessions made to a Police Officer is to avoid the danger of admitting a false confession. Confessions extorted by the police by oppression and torture or inducements are not of infrequent occurrence and it is to guard against this evil that the Section has been enacted. A confession to a Police Officer even in the presence of a Magistrate is inadmissible Whether a person is a Police Officer for purposes of this Section would be whether the powers of a Police Officer which are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him establish a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by this Section that is relating to a the recording of a confession Accused of an offence means a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession However, Section 26 of the Act directs the way-out in which the confession would be admissible in the evidence made by an accused person and Section 27 of the Act is an exception to the above stated principle that is when a confession made even to the Police Officer is admissible in the evidence. Section 26 of the Act says, " No confession by any person whilst he is in the custody of a Police Officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person." Hence, if a confession made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate is admissible in the evidence. The presence of a Magistrate secures the accused free and voluntary nature of the confession and the confessing person has an opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled by any fear of the police. Section 27 of the Act, states, "When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." hence, if a confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. It is admissible only-
When a statement made by an accused person while in custody of a Police Officer is tendered in evidence on the ground that an article, which is concealed, and the accused's knowledge of its whereabouts are discovered in consequence of the statement. The words included in the statement with regard to the authorship of the concealment, e.g., "I have concealed," "I have hidden", or " I have kept", are admissible in evidence |
|