SECTION 14: FACTS SHOWINFG EXISTENCE OF STATE OF MIND,

OR OF BODY, OR BODILY FEELING.

SCOPE
This section is applicable in cases where the offence alleged to have been
committed by the accused is culpable on the basis of the state of mind or feeling
of the accused. This includes offences such as slander, false imprisonment, etc.
in which malice is the primary requirement for culpability. However, the
applicability of the section must not be extended to those cases which are
supposed to be decided upon actual facts and not any state of mind or bodily
feeling. For instance, in order to prove that a man has committed an offence
such as that of theft on one occasion, the fact that he committed similar offences
on other occasions is not relevant.
STATE OF MIND
● The existence of any state of mind, such as knowledge good faith
negligence ,rashness or goodwill towards any particular person; Or
● The existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,— are relevant, —
when the existence of any such state of mind, or body, or bodily feeling,
is in issue or is relevant.
● Donoghue v. Stevenson
A person is liable for accidental damage if the accident was due to his
negligence
● Bajaj Auto v. Firodia
A wanted to transfer his shares to B. So A wrote a letter to the director
regarding the transfer. But the directed refused his so that A could suffer
market loss. A suffered a loss of about 2 lakhs and it was the fault of the
director. Hence a refusal of the director of a company to accept a transfer
of shares is liable to struck down if they were actuated by bad faith.
● R v. Nur Mohammad
In order to prove that the accused delivered a counterfeit coin with
knowledge that is was not genuine, it may be shown that at the time of
delivery he was in possession of other such counterfeit coins or that he
had previously been convicted of the offence.
Facts showing or depicting the state of mind whether the act done was in good
faith or with guilty intention.
STATE OF BODY OR BODILY FEELING
An important fact for this purpose is the statement of the affected person, for he
alone knows best the state of his body.
Aveson v. Kinnaird(Lord)

ILLUSTRATIONS
1. A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s, which B knew to be
ferocious. The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and
that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.
2. The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that
the name of the payee was fictitious. The fact that A had accepted other
bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted
to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant, as
showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person
3. A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent,
whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss.
The fact that, at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was
supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with
him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.
4. A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A
is owner, by the order of C, a contractor. A’s defence is that B’s contract
was with C. The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as
proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of the
work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s
own account, and not as agent for A.
EXPLANATION 1
Specific state of mind Per Explanation 1 to the section, the evidence must be
pertaining to the specific state of mind that pertains to the case at hand and not
that of general reputation. Thus, anything that has a distinct and immediate
connection to the case at hand is admissible.

Emperor v. Debendra Prasad, (1909) 36 Cal 573. In R v. B

The accused was convicted of assaulting his grandsons on the basis of
pornographic magazines found in his possession and his sexual proclivities. The
subsequent appeal filed by him was allowed and the Court observed that the
evidence of pornographic magazines and the subsequent cross-examination of
the accused showed a mere tendency and had no probative value due to which it
should not have been admitted as evidence in the first place.

EXPLANATION 2
Previous Convictions Per Explanation 2 to the section, in a case where the
previous commission of an offence is relevant, the fact that the accused was
previously convicted for the said offence would be relevant under the section.
However, the question of previous convictions being used in subsequent cases is
often debated under various provisions of the Evidence Act.

Emperor v. AlloomiyaHusan
The accused was arrested and convicted under the Bombay Prevention of
Gambling Act for keeping a common gaming house. The conviction by the
Magistrate was based upon the fact that the accused was previously convicted
on multiple occasions under the Gambling Act. Upon appeal, the decision was
upheld and the fact pertaining to previous convictions was held to be relevant
and admissible under section 14 of the Evidence Act.

SECTION 15: FACTS BEARING ON QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT

WAS ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL.
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done
with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a
series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was
concerned, is relevant.

ILLUSTRATIONS
● A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for
which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively,
each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each
of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are
relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
● A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to
make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes
an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he
really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental
or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book
are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are
relevant.

GENERAL PRINCIPLE
● Section 15 lays down the rules of admissibility of evidence in cases,
where the question is whether a particular act was accidental or done with
particular intention or knowledge.
● The section raises two questions viz.,
1. Whether the act with which a person is charged, is accidental or
intentional, and
 2. whether the act was done with a particular knowledge or
intention.
● It is important to note that in cases showing the existence of any state of
mind which proves and disapproves of intention for doing an act being
necessary are regulated by the Section 14 of the Act.
● Section 14 is a general section dealing with all cases in which state of
mind is involved.
● Section 15, on the other hand, provides specifically for allowing evidence
of similar occurrences. It is not an exception but an application of general
rule laid down in Section 14. It picks out only those cases where the
question is whether a particular act is accidental or intentional.
● In order to prove intention, the section is to apply to the act of similar
nature, because Section 15 is a particular application of the general rule
laid down in the Section 14.
● An act is said to be similar to another when it is similar to a fact in issue
only. For example, if a person is prosecuted for theft, a similar act had to
be committed by him on another occasion. Since the general principle
laid down in Section 14 is to exclude the evidence of similar facts, this
principle devised by the Section 15 will apply only when there is a
striking similarity between the fact on which the case is based and the
fact of which evidence is offered. The two facts possess a common
characteristic.
● Section 15 has also laid down another principle that “all the acts should
form parts of a series of similar occasions,” Under the section the similar
occurrences must be many. One single instance cannot constitute a series
of similar occurrences and it is not admissible.
● Where the question was whether the accused had forged signatures upon
a bill of exchange, the fact that he had forged signatures upon other bills
were held to be inadmissible. A solitary act is not relevant.
● Emperor v. Panchu Das
The accused Panchu Das introduced himself to a rich prostitute as a
Maharaja and another man as his darwan (doorkeeper). Both of them
regularly visited the house of the prostitute and suddenly they
disappeared. The woman was found dead in her room and her valuables
had gone. No trace of the man could be found and police closed the file.
After two years the two men were arrested in another city when they were
playing a similar trick with another rich prostitute. It was held by a
majority that evidence of murder and robbery of the first woman was not
relevant under any of the provisions of the Act. Referring to Section 15 it
was also held that they were likely persons who had committed the crime
 because their modus operandi was similar and “there was no room for any
doubt that the acts with which the accused were charged were identical.”
Similarly,
● Noor Mohammed v The King.
In this case the accused was tried for the murder of a woman named
Ayesha by poisoning her. Evidence was given to show that the accused
had previously murdered another woman by similar trick. The evidence
was held inadmissible as there was no direct evidence. If the accused was
proved to have administered poison to Ayesha in circumstances
consistent with accident, the proof that he had previously administered
poison to any other in similar circumstances might well have been
admissible. It has been regarded that “the relevancy of similar fact not as
a rule of law but of practice

● Section 15 lays down the rules of admissibility of evidence in cases,

where the question is whether a particular act was accidental or done
with particular intention or knowledge. The section raises two questions
viz.,
1. Whether the act with which a person is charged, is accidental or
intentional,
2. Whether the act was done with a particular knowledge or
intention.

● It is important to note that in cases showing the existence of any state of

mind which proves and disapproves of intention for doing an act being
necessary are regulated by the Section 14 of the Act.
● Section 14 is a general section dealing with all cases in which state of
mind is involved. Section 15, on the other hand, provides specifically for
allowing evidence of similar occurrences.
● It is not an exception but an application of general rule laid down in
Section 14. It picks out only those cases where the question is whether a
particular act is accidental or intentional. In order to prove intention, the
section is to apply to the act of similar nature, because Section 15 is a
particular application of the general rule laid down in the Section 14.
● An act is said to be similar to another when it is similar to a fact in issue
only. For example, if a person is prosecuted for theft, a similar act had to
be committed by him on another occasion. Since the general principle
laid down in Section 14 is to exclude the evidence of similar facts, this
principle devised by the Section 15 will apply only when there is a
 striking similarity between the fact on which the case is based and the
fact of which evidence is offered.
● The two facts possess a common characteristic. Section 15 has also laid
down another principle that “all the acts should form parts of a series of
similar occasions,” Under the section the similar occurrences must be
many. One single instance cannot constitute a series of similar
occurrences and it is not admissible. Where the question was whether the
accused had forged signatures upon a bill of exchange, the fact that he
had forged signatures upon other bills were held to be inadmissible. A
solitary act is not relevant

Essence of the section:

● It is necessary that all acts should form part of a series of similar
occurrences. The reason is that if the act was not accidental, it must have
been done intentionally or with knowledge

● Emperor v. Panchu Das.

The accused Panchu Das introduced himself to a rich prostitute as a
Maharaja and another man as his darwan (doorkeeper). Both of them
regularly visited the house of the prostitute and suddenly they
disappeared. The woman was found dead in her room and her valuables
had gone. No trace of the man could be found and police closed the file.
After two years the two men were arrested in another city when they were
playing a similar trick with another rich prostitute. It was held by a
majority that evidence of murder and robbery of the first woman was not
relevant under any of the provisions of the Act. Referring to Section 15 it
was also held that they were likely persons who had committed the crime
because their modus operandi was similar and “there was no room for any
doubt that the acts with which the accused were charged were identical.”
Similarly, the same principle was followed in

● Noor Mohammed v The King.

In this case the accused was tried for the murder of a woman named
Ayesha by poisoning her. Evidence was given to show that the accused
had previously murdered another woman by similar trick. The evidence
was held inadmissible as there was no direct evidence. If the accused was
proved to have administered poison to Ayesha in circumstances
consistence with accident, the proof that he had previously administered
poison to any other in similar circumstances might well have been
 admissible. It has been regarded that “the relevancy of similar fact not as
a rule of law but of practice

ILLUSTRATIONS

● A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for

which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively,
each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each
of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are
relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
● A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to
make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes
an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he
really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was
accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the
same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of
A, are relevant.
● A is accused of fraudulently delivering to В a counterfeit rupee. The
question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts
that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit
rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B, was
not accidental.

SECTION 16:- EXISTENCE OF COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN

RELEVANT

● Section 16 lays down that whenever there is a question whether a

particular act was done, the existence of a general course of business or
office within which it would have naturally been done, is relevant and
admissible.
● When an act is done an inference may be drawn that it would have been
done in the general course of business. A kind of presumption is attached
to the evidence relevant under the section. It is based on the maxim,
omnia proesuomuntur rite esse acta, which means that all acts are
presumed to be rightly done. For example if the latter was posted in due
course and it was not returned, it may be reasonably presumed that the
latter reached to the addressee
● The subject matter of the section is that “when the course of business
usually followed is proved the probability is that there was no departure
from the common course of business in the particular transaction.” It is
 this presumption that a general regularity, even in particular cases, is not
disturbed.
● The presumption is again fortified by the Illustration (f) to Section 114
which says that the court may presume that the common course of
business has been followed in particular case. This, however, is a
rebuttable presumption.

SECTION 17:- ADMISSION DEFINED

ADMISSION CONFESSION
Admission does not have a direct confession has a direct involvement of
involvement of guilt guilt
Admission is used in civil case confession is used in criminal cases.
Section 31 of evidence act says that But a voluntary confession becomes a
admission is not a conclusive proof conclusive proof

ILLUSTRATION:
● A and B are in a house together. A dies and B runs away. Neighbours
don’t know that there were two people together in the house. B was later
on caught and questioned. B says that yes, he was in the house together
with A.This is a admission. But in case B said that yes, he killed A, then
it would have been a confession

REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS.

1. Waiver of proof: it saves the time of the court. If a person is admitting to

something then the other person does not have to prove anything. This
way the time is saved. Section 58 has also recognized this aspect of the
principle of admissions.

2. Admissions as statement against interest: It is natural for a man to

make a statement in his favour. An admission, being a statement against
the interest of the maker, should be supposed to be true, for it is highly
improbable that a person will voluntarily make a false statement against
his own interest.For one thing, section 17 does not require that an
admission should be a statement against one’s own interest. All that is
necessary is that the statement should suggest some inference as to a fact
in issue, even if the inference is in favour of the declarant. The definition
also includes self-serving statements, though, of course a party can prove
a self-serving statement only under the exceptions laid down in section
21.
 3. Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements:
Where there is contraction between the statements of the party and his
case, the contradiction is relevant. For example, A sues B upon a loan.
The account book shows that the loan was given to C. The statement in
his Account Book contradicts his case against B.

4. Admissions as evidence of truth:

The statements made by the party about the facts of the case, whether
they may go in his favour or against his interest, should be relevant as
representation or reflecting the truth as against him. Whatever a party
says in evidence against himself may be presumed to be so.”

TYPES OF ADMISSIONS.

1. Judicial Admission:
The judicial or formal admission is addressed to the court and is the part of the
proceeding. It is made on the record in the file of the court. The judicial
admission may be made by the party in his pleading, or by stipulation, or by
statement in open court. Admission in pleadings or judicial admissions by
themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.
● Nagindas ramdas v. Dalpatram ichharam
Judicial evidence is admissible under sec 58 and it becomes a very
important evidence. Its weightage becomes more than evidentiary
evidence and it becomes binding on both the parties.

2. Informal evidence
Informal admission is a statement of fact made by the party previously in
the course of life or business which is inconsistent with the facts to be
established at the trial. The extrajudicial admissions are called evidential
admissions. The Evidence Act only deals with this sort of admission in
Sections 17 to 23.
A and B have a dispute about whether A has taken a debt of 5000 from B.
A then admits it to C. Now if C goes and tells the court then it becomes
an informal admission.
● Rumping v. D.D.P
A person was charged with murderof a woman. He was a ship mate. The
person then write a letter addressed to his wife, admitting the fact that he
murdered a woman and hurt her. This letter reaches someone else. This
other person then send it to the captain of the ship. The captain then gives
it to the police. This letter was allowed as a prove of admission.

ADMISSION AND HEARSAY

Section 3 explains oral evidence. Signs are also included as oral evidence in
case a person cannot speak due to any reason.
● Queen Empress v. Abdulla
A woman whose throat was slit and was about to die, gave a signal in
gestures towards the killer. Her sign was admitted as an oral evidence.

Section 60: this section states that oral evidence must be direct for it to be
relevant, in all cases. It will be admissible only if the person who admits
something has seen it happening.
● If it is in reference to a fact which can be heard then he must have heard it
himself and then state it as evidence.
● If it is in reference to a fact which can be perceived by any other sense as
in smell or touch, then the person must have perceived it himself.
● If it is in reference to an opinion then it must be relevant evidence only if
that person whose opinion it is, presents it. But if an expert has given his
opinion in a treaty and it is up for sale then it can be treated as admissible
evidence.
Example:- an expert has given his opinion about something in a book and
that book is up for sale then this book can be used as an admissible
evidence. Section 60 says that the person should personally come and
admit it then only it can be accepted as evidence. But here it is an
exception just in case the court cannot call that person or that person has
died or etc.

● The person should have first had knowledge of the scene. So this means
that hearsay is excluded
● But there are certain exceptions where hearsay evidence can be accepted.
● Admissions and confession are one such exceptions.

ADMISSION BY CONDUCT
● Moviarity v. London Latham & Dover Railways.
A person filed a suit for personal injury against the railways. He called
some fake witnesses who were not present at the scene. The court gets to
know all this. The witnesses also tell that they are fake and were not even
present at the scene. This admission becomes a admissible evidence that
the case was fake.
● Mayo v. Mayo
A mother was registering her child’s birth but she didn’t mention the
father’s name or details. Later on in a case the court held that the fact that
the mother didn’t mention about the father means that the child is
 illegitimate and she has committed adultery. This is an admissible
evidence that she didn’t fill out the father’s details.
● Bessela v Stern
The girl said to the boy “you always promised to marry me and you did
not keep your words.” The boy did not deny the allegation, but he offered
her some money. The boy’s silence as to promise was held to be
admission.

QUESTIONS:
Q.1. Does silence amount to admission?
A.1. Silence may amount to admission as if there is no reply or denial. A party
may admit the truth of the matter.

Q.2. How is admission admissible?

Q.3. Is admission is conclusive proof?

A.3. No, admission is a substansive proof. But it can work as an estoppels under
section 31

Q.4. If there is a civil case and 2 people decide together rhat a particular
thing would not be used as an evidence then can this happen?
A.4. Yes it can

Q.5. Explain formal evidence.

Q.6. How can admission be done?

A.6. Oral, written, electronic

SECTION 18:- ADMISSION BY PARTY TO PROCEEDING OR HIS

AGENT

PARTIES TO SUIT
● Parties to the proceeding include not only those who appear on the
record, but also persons who are not parties on the record, and they are
interested in the subject matter of the suit. They are considered by law as
real parties in interest. It is the basic principle that all statements of the
party in a suit or proceedings are relevant.
● If there are more than 1 defendants or plaintiffs. And one of the plaintiffs
or defendants admits to something then will it be relevant against other
plaintiffs or defendants?
To explain this instance there is a case:
● Mutheogowda v. Chhenigowda
 It was said in this case that “ an admission is the best evidence only
against the person who has made it”.
● Sitaramcharya v. GUrurajcharya
Defendant in any previous proceeding admitted something in writing,
then this writing can be used as relevant evidence in subsequent
proceedings.

AGENTS TO PARTIES:
● It has not been mentioned in the section but various cases show that
agents to the parties are also relevant while giving admission.
● Kristall Brewery Co. v. Turness Rail Co.
When a station master reports loss of goods to police during the ordinary
course of business or work then it will come upon the railway owner or
company. Hence the railway master will be an agent.
● Re The Earl of Dumfries
When a ship’s captain gives any statement during the ordinary course of
work, about anything then it comes upon the ship;s owner because the
captain functions as an agent.
● Bengal National Bank Ltd v. Jatindra Nath Mazumdar
There are mutual agencies in a partnership firm. So if any partner
acknowledges any debt during the course of work then it will be bound
to the firm because the partner will be treated as an agent.
● S.B Banque v. Girdharilal
Same with a lawyer. Ehan a client gives, express or implied, authority to
their lawyer that anything said by the lawyer can be treated as an
admission of the client. They give all the power to the lawyer and if the
lawyer admits to certain things then it will be relevant against the client.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER:
The statements made by a person who sues or issued, in a representative
character is relevant if it was made during the time when he was holding such
character. “This principle is grounded on the fact that a statement against the
interest of a person making it will not be made unless truth compelled it.” The
person’s occupied representative character includes trustees, receivers, assignee
of an insolvent estate, executors, administrators, guardian etc. In regard to
ancestral property admission by father would be admissible against the son, the
former being the representative interest.

STATEMENT OF 3RD PARTY:

These are those people who are not part of the party but their statement is
relevant. This happens in two cases:
 Persons having pecuniary or Predecessor-in-title
proprietary interest in subject-matter

1. Person having pecuniary interest:

For example there was a person and his son made an agreement, to sell
his land, with someone. The case went to court that the son is not the real
owner of that land. Now, his father stated that “ yes” his son is not the
real owner. So here this statement was taken as relevant evidence because
although the father is 3rd person here but due to his pecuniary interest in
the subject-matter, his statement was taken as relevant evidence.
2. Predecessor-in-title:
The statements of the person from whom the parties to the suit derive
their interest in the subject matter of the suit are admissible. “It has to be
shown that such statements were made during the continuance of their
interest in the subject matter of the suit. A person of this kind is known as
“predecessor in title.” No admission could be made after parting with the
interest.
For example: A sold his building to B. but there were tenants living in
that building when he sold it. Now B acquires the title of the building but
the tenants won’t leave. B then files a suit against the tenants that they
have been living there without his permission. Nor if A admits to the fact
that tenants were living here even when he sold the building, then this
statement will be relevant.

SECTION 19:- ADMISSION BY PERSON WHOSE POSITION MUST

BE PROVED AS AGAINST PARTY TO SUIT
Section 19 forms an exception to the rule that certain statement made by
strangers to the proceeding are not admission as against the parties. It deals with
such statements of the third person whose position is in issue. Under this section
the party to the proceeding can use the statement of the third party, if the
statement of the third party contained in the admissions goes against him in
connection with the matter involving the position or liability affected by that
admission.
When a person’s right and liability depends upon another person’s right and
liability whose position is in the issue then the admission given by such a person
will be admissible against the first person.
ILLUSTRATION:
A undertakes to collect rests for B
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is relevant fact
against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

SECTION 20:- ADMISSION BY PERSONS EXPRESSLY REFERRED

TO BY PARTY TO SUIT.
● Section 20 is referring to the statements of a referee who is also a third
person to the suit or proceeding.
● The statements made by a third person are also admissible and the rule is
another exception to the general rule laid down in Section 18 that the
admissions by strangers to the suit are not relevant.
● The reason is that when a party refers to another person for a statement
of his views, the party approves of his utterance in anticipation and
adopts that as his own.
● The principle is that a party makes a reference to a third person for
‘information,’ any statement by that person about the subject matter of
the reference is admissible against the party making the reference.
ILLUSTRATION:
If the question is whether a horse sold by A to В is sound. A says to В—“you
go and ask С who knows about it.” The statement of С is an admission.

SECTION 21:- PROOF OF ADMISSION AGAINST PERSONS MAKING

THEM, AND BY ON THEIR BEHALF.
● Under this section certain exceptions are given where admission can be in
favour of the person making them.
● The general rule behind the admissibility of admission is that it is against
the interest of the person making the admission. If it was not so then
admission wouldn’t have been admissible.
● ILLUSTRATION :
The question between A and В is, whether a certain deed is or is not
forged, A affirms that it is genuine, В that it is forged. A may prove a
statement by В that the deed is genuine, and В may prove a statement by
 A that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that
the deed is genuine, nor can В prove a statement by himself that the deed
is forged.

(1) Any statement given by a person who comes under section 32 of IEA will
be relevant. Sections 32 deals with people who are either dead or cannot
be found. So any statement given by such a person will be relevant
evidence even if it's in their favour. Section 32 of the Evidence Act lays
down that the statement of persons, who are dead, or who cannot be
found or who otherwise cannot be called before the court, may be proved
under the circumstances
ILLUSTRATION:
● A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is
given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A
produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business,
showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day
to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper
course. A may prove these statements, because they would be
admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32.
● A  is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.He produces
a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and
bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day.The statement in the date
of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be
admissible under section 32

(2) The statement of existence of any state of mind or body made by a person
is relevant. But such statements should have been made at or about the
time when such state of mind or body existed and followed by conduct.
Such a state of mind or body is relevant also under section 14. Section 14
only provides that such statements are relevant, whereas Section 21 (b)
demands that such statements must be proved on behalf of the person
making them. The rule laid down in this section is subjected to the
provisions relating to confessions of the accused in Sections 24, 25 and
26 and also subjected to Sections 164 and 281, Cr. PC.
ILLUSTRATION:
● A was injured in an accident and during his injury when he was
bodily feeling the injury at the time of accident he stated that the
accident was not intentional. His statement is relevant here.
● A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.
 A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because
they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.

(3) Section 21 lays down that an admission may be proved by or on behalf of

a person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. The
condition is that the statement must be relevant to determine the fact in
issue and only previous statements are relevant.
● Firstly a party may prove his own statement under section 6 if it is
a part of the same transaction. The doctrine of res gestae covers
such statements. For example, where immediately after an
accident, a person pulled up to the injured who then made a
statement as to the cause of injury. The statement may be proved
by or on behalf of the injured person, it being the part of the same
transaction
which injured him.
● For more examples see book page number 130 last 2 paras.
Bhiru singh v state of rajastha 1994
In this case a guy killed his wife and 5 kids and he was not insane. He killed his
wife because he had a doubt that his wife had an affair with some other person
and he killed his kids because he had another doubt that the kids were not his.
The guy then takes a sword and marches up to the police station and files a fir
stating that he killed his family.
Now the question was whether this fir will be accepted as an admission or
not?
● The court said that no it would be accepted as an admission because it
gets hit with section 25 of IEA and only those parts will be admissible
which will come under section 27 of IEA meaning only those parts will
be admissible which will be confessions under fir and there is any
discovery regarding those things.
● Court also said that fir is not substantive evidence it can only be used for
corroboration or contradiction if the informant appears under sec 155 and
section 157 of IEA.
● The fir and admission of the guy was not taken as a relevant admission
but the fact that he went to the police and filed an fir was taken as a
conduct under section 8 and this conduct of his was then taken as a
relevant admission.
QUESTIONS:
Q.1 What are those circumstances where a person when gives an admission
in his favour and it becomes admissible?
● First is under sec 32
● Second is bodily feeling or state of mind
● Third is relevant than as an admission
Q.2 Discuss this illustration: A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting
her away.Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her
proper course.A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his
business, showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day
to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course.
A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between
third parties, if he were dead, under section 32.
A.2 as an answer explains section 21(1) only nt other parts because this
illustration is related to this sub-section .

Q.3 Discuss this illustration: A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing

them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below
their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions,
because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
A.3 here explain section 21(2) and nothing else because this illustration is
related to conduct

SECTION 22 :- WHEN ORAL ADMISSION AS TO CONTENTS OF

DOCUMENTS ARE RELEVANT
● Oral admission as to the content of the document are not relevant, this is
the general rule.
● The law says that in case the person does not have primary evidence but
they have secondary evidence and want to prove it then the court allows
this and its oral admission of documents

SECTION 22(A):- WHEN ORAL ADMISSIONS AS TO CONTENTS OF

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARE RELEVANT
Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless
the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.
Under this section the electronic records are presumed to be genuine unless any
question arises in this regard. Oral evidence as to contents of electronic records
may be allowed when the genuineness of such records is in question.

SECTION 23:- ADMISSION IN CIVIL CASES, WHEN RELEVANT.

● This section applies only on civil cases
● Admission will not be relevant in civil cases.
 ● Unless an express condition is laid down by the person giving the
admission that it cannot be used as a evidence in the court then it won't be
relevant evidence
● Or if the court infers from the circumstances that the parties have made
an agreement of sorts to not use a particular admission as an evidence in
court then too it won't be relevant evidence.
● Explanation: section 23 will exempt barristers, vakil, attorney and pleader
for making any admission under sec 126. In simple words section 23 is an
exception of proviso of sec 126

CONFESSION
(SEC 24- SEC 30)

SECTION 24:- CONFESSION BY INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR

PROMISE WHEN IRRELEVANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
When a confession is made by a person who is under criminal proceedings, due
to any pressure or threat or any promise then such a confession is irrelevant.

INDUCEMENT, THREAT, KNOWLEDGE.

● A confession should be free and voluntary. “If it proceeds from remorse
and a desire to make reparation for the crime, it is admissible. If it flows
from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible
● His inducement need not be necessarily expressed. It may be implied
from the conduct of the person in authority, from the declaration of the
prisoner or the circumstances of the case. Similarly it need not be made to
the prisoner directly; it is sufficient to have come to his knowledge
provided it appears to have induced confession.
● R v. Baldry.
Where a prisoner was told by a constable that he need not say anything to
criminate himself, but what he did say would be taken down and used in
evidence against him, it was held that such words did not amount to any
threat or promise to induce the prisoner to confess.

PERSON IN AUTHORITY
● The threat, inducement and promise on account of which the accused
admits guilt must come from a person who has got some authority over
the matter.
● “person in authority” can be government official, magistrate, coroners,
police constables, wardens etc.
 ● To be clear, the person giving different promises, threatening the accused
or inducing him to make the confession must be a person in authority as
stated in the Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan .
● If a friend of the accused induces him to make a confession or a relation
if he makes him a promise that if he confesses he will get him released or
even if he threatens him and the accused on that account admits his guilt
this statement will not be excluded by Section 24 as the threat,
inducement or promise do not emanate from a person in authority.
● If the accused makes the confession thinking that by doing so the
authorities would soften the attitude towards him the confession cannot
be said to be non-voluntary.
● R v. Upchurch
Here an employee was charged with arson of his employer’s house, a
confession made on exhortations of the employer’s wife that it would
save his neck, was held to be irrelevant.

IN REFERENCE OF CHARGE:
● The inducement must have reference to the charge against the accused
person that is the charge of offence in the criminal courts and inferencing
the mind of the accused with respect to the escape from the charge.
● The inducement must have reference to escape from the charge.
● Thus, it is necessary for the confession to be excluded from evidence that
the accused should labour under influence that in reference to the charge
in question his position would be better or worse according to whether he
confesses or not.
● The inducement, threat, or promise should be related to his present case
or any other case.
● Empress v. Mohan Lal.
Here a murderer was told by the panchayat that if he doesn’t confess to
his crime then he will be expelled from his caste community. It was held
that this confession was relevant. As caste had nothing to do with this
case, this charge.

BENEFIT OF TEMPORAL NATURE.

● The benefit promised here must be a wordly benefit, a temporary one not
a spiritual one.
● For example a person is threatening another person spiritually that his
soul will become evil and all if he doesn’t confess. And under such a
threat a person confesses then this confession will be relevant because it
was not of temporal nature.
 ● For example of a temporal nature: a person makes a promise to another
person that he must confess and then he will save him from any
punishment. Then the confession made under such a benefit or threat will
be irrelevant.

SECTION 25:- CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER NOT TO BE

PROVED.
● A confession made by an ACCUSED to a police officer will not be taken
as against that person. It won’t be proved against that person.
● Reason is that if confessions to police were allowed to be proved in
evidence, the police would torture the accused and thus force him to
confess to a crime which he might not have a committed. A confession so
obtained would naturally be unreliable.
● The mere presence of the policeman should not have this effect. Where
the confession is being given to someone else and the policeman is only
casually present and overhears it that will not destroy the voluntary nature
of the confession.
● Emperor v. Har Piari
But when that person is a secret agent of the police deputed for the very
purpose of receiving a confession, it will suffer from blemish of being a
confession to police.
● A confessional statement made by a person to the police even before he is
accused of any offence is equally irrelevant. The section clearly says that
such a statement cannot be proved against any person accused of any
offence. This means that even if the accusation is subsequent to the
statement, the statement cannot be proved.
● CONFESSIONAL FIR: Only that part of a confessional First
Information Report is admissible which does not amount to a confession
or which comes under the scope of section 27. The non confessional part
of the FIR can be used as evidence against the accused as showing his
conduct under section 8.