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.

• Facts though not in issue are so connected with the facts in issue as to form part of the transaction is a relevant fact (Section 6)

• Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of relevant facts or facts in issue (Section 7)

• Any fact is relevant, which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation, for any facts in issue or relevant facts. (Section 8 )

• Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant facts, are relevant in so far they are necessary for that purpose.

• Facts, which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact.

• Facts which establish the identify of any thing or person, whose identity is relevant.

• Facts, which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact has happened is relevant.

• Facts, which show the relation of parties by whom such facts were transacted, are relevant. (Section 9)

• Things said or done by conspirators in reference to common design.(Section 10)

• Facts otherwise not relevant are relevant.

  1. if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. (Example- The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that on that particular day A was at Lahore was relevant.

  2. if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. (Section 11)

• In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact, which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages, which ought to be awarded is relevant. (Section 12)

• Facts relevant when right or custom is in question with particular reference to establishing in the first place the particular right or custom and in the second place the particular instance in which the right or custom is claimed. (Section 13)

• Facts showing the following are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue, or relevant.

  1. any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person,

  2. or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant. (Section 14)

• Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional is relevant. (Section 15)

• When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact. (Section 16)

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
[Latafat Husain Vs. Lala Onkar Mal (1934) 10 Luck 423].

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
[Banarsi Das vs, Kanshi Ram AIR 1963 SC 1165].

Section 18 of the Act lays down five classes of persons who can make admissions-

1. Party to the proceeding- A statement made by a party in a former suit between the same or different parties is admissible. The proceeding may be civil or criminal
   [(1959) 61 Bom. LR 792].

2. A statement made by a party in a pleading cannot be evidence in subsequent proceedings before a Court of law unless it amounts to an admission
   [Raj Kumar vs. Gopi Nath AIR 1971 All 273

3. Agent authorized by such party- The admissions of an agent are admissible because the principal is bound by the acts of his agent done in the course of business and within the scope of his authority. Admissions of facts made by a pleader in the conduct of a suit on his client's behalf are binding on the client. But a party is not bound, generally speaking, by a pleader's admission in argument on what is a pure question of law. However, a pleader cannot give up any portion of his client's case without express authority, nor is he entitled to admit the claim of the other party. Similarly, partners are agents of one another so far as the business of partnership is concerned. Where several persons are engaged in one common business or dealing, a statement made by one of them with reference to any transaction, which forms part of their joint business, has always been held admissible as evidence against the others.

4. Party suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while holding such character-
   This means trustees, executors, administrators, and managers in the character of an executor or administrator, or the assignee of a bankrupt.

5. Person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding during the continuance of such interest- When several persons are jointly interested in the subject-matter of a suit, an admission of any one of these persons is receivable not only against himself but also against the other defendants, whether they be all jointly suing or sued, provided that the admission relates to the subject-matter in dispute and be made by the declarant in his character of a person jointly interested with the party against whom the evidence is tendered.

6. Person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest- Statements made either by parties interested or by persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest are admissions only if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statement. The admissions of a former owner of property after he has ceased to have interest in it are not evidence against the party in possession.

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

1. Either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given- There is protection for the communications made 'without prejudice'. Confidential overtures of pacification and any other offers or propositions between litigating parties, expressly or impliedly made without prejudice are excluded on grounds of public policy. The expression 'without prejudice' means without prejudice to the writer of the letter if the terms he proposes are not accepted. It means this: "I make you an offer which you may accept or not, as you like; but if you do not accept it, my having made it is to have no effect at all".

2. Under circumstances from which the court can be given or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. Such circumstances must be of such a character that the court must naturally come to the conclusion that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

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.
[Dhanapati De Vs. Emperor (1944) 2 Cal 312].

In other words, confession is direct or express acknowledgement of guilt.

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.

1. These things should have reference to the charge against the accused,

2. Proceeded from a person in authority, and

3. Sufficiently given the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

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-

1. If it is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed;

2. If it is not made to a Police Officer; or
   If it is made in the presence of a magistrate when the accused is in the custody of a Police Office

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
[AIR 1954 S.C. 15].

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
[Raja Ram vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828].

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
. [A. Nagesia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119].

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-

1. If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from an accused person in police custody; and

2. If the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.

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
[State Vs. Rama Shidappa (1951) 54 Bombay LR 316].