DYING DECLARATION- BSA 26(a), IEA 32(1)

Introduction
A dying declaration is a statement made by a declaring as to the cause of his death or who
died explaining the cause of his death if the person making the dying statement,is likely to
live, his statement is inadmisible as a dying statement,but it examine it could be added on
under section 158 of the Indian evidence act 1872, to corroborate his testimony it is dealt
under clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian evidence act 1872

Dying declaration in English law

According to English law the statement is only relevant when the charge is of murder
This was laid down in R vs Mead.
Under the English law, it is essential/ to the admissibility of dying
declaration that the declarant must have entertained a settled
hopeless expectation of death, but he need not have been
expecting immediate death.

R vs Jenkins

1

 R vs Perry

Waugh VS R

It is necessary that the deceased should have completed the

statement before dying.

The distinction between the English Law and Indian Law:

Under the English law, it is essential/ to the admissibility of dying
declaration that the declarant must have entertained a settled hopeless
expectation of death, but he need not have been expecting immediate
death.

Indian law does not put any such restrictions. It is not required under
Indian law that the maker should be under an expectation of imminent

2

 death, nor it is restricted to the case of homicide only. Before a dying
declaration may be admitted, it must be proved that its maker is dead. If
the maker survives, it may be used to corroborate or contradict his
statement in the court.
According to Section 32(1) itself:
1. A statement may be oral and written. But inEmperor vs. Abdullah
it was held that Conduct to be relevant as dying declaration.
2. The statement must be as to:
• Cause Of Death
• Circumstances Of The Transaction
• Resulted In The Death
3. Pakala Narayan Swamy vs. Emperor, AlR 1939[1]-The statement
made by the deceased to his wife that he was going to the
accused to collect money from him (accused being indebted to the
deceased), was held to be admissible under section 32(1).

FIR as dying declaration:

Where an injured person lodged the FIR and then died. It was held
inK.Ramchanda Reddy vs. Public Prosecution[2]to be relevant
as dying declaration.

4. Death of the person is must while making the statement-If death is

not the result, his statement inadmissible/as dying declaration, but
it might be relied on under Section 157 to corroborate his
testimony of to contradict him under Section 145. It can be used to
corroborate the evidence in court under Section 6 and 8.

5. Cause of death of the deceased must be in question.

6. Expectancy of death is not necessary.
7. Whatever may be the nature of proceeding-It may/be civil or
criminal nature where the death of the person- deceased is in
question.

The language of dying declaration

Dying declaration recorded in the language of the declarant acquires
added strengthened reliability. As far as possible, it should be recorded
in the exact words and language of the declarant. In Deepak Baliram
Bajaj vs State of Maharashtra,[3]the of death of a lady was due to

3

 100% burn injuries, the dying declaration was recorded in the hospital by
a constable.

Questions were asked in Sindhi by Special Executive Magistrate and

were replied in Sindhi and then translated to the constable in Hindi who
in turn recorded them in Marathi. The declaration was explained in Hindi
and not in Sindhi to the declarant. The Supreme Court held that the
conviction based solely on such a dying declaration could not be
sustained.
• Who Can Record A Dying Declaration?
A dying declaration can be recorded by a person, even by a police
of cer. But if it is recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, it will have more
strength and reliability.

In the State of U.P. v/s Shishupal Singh, [4]the dying declaration

was recorded by the Magistrate which was neither signed by the
deceased, nor contained date and time of its recording and the
prosecution failed to give any explanation that the deceased was
not able to sign it.

It was held that such dying declaration which was impregnated with
so many suspicious circumstances which created doubt about its
genuineness and it was not safe to base conviction on it. In Ram
Singh vs. Delhi Administration,[5] it was held by Delhi High Court
that a clear and corroborated dying declaration can not be rejected
just only because it was recorded by a police of cer.

• Admissibility of Dying Declaration -

In Sant Gopal vs. State of U.P.[6]1995 Cr.L.J. (AIR.) Evidence of
dying declaration is admissible not only against the person causing
the/death but also against other persons participating in causing
death.
The Supreme Court has laid down in several judgments' the
principles governing dying declaration, which can be summed
up as under:
• There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that the dying
declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.
• If the court is satis ed that the dying declaration is true and
voluntary, it can base conviction omit, without corroboration.

4

fi
fi
fi
 • The court must scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and
must ensure that the declaration/is not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination. The deceased had the opportunity
to observe and identify the assailants and was in a t state to
make the declaration.
• Where a dying declaration is suspicious it should not be
acted upon without corroborative evidence.
• Where the deceased was unconscious and could never
make any dying declaration evidence about it is to be
rejected
• A dying declaration which suffers from in rmity cannot form
the basis of conviction.
• Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the
details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. Equally,
merely because it is a brief statement it is not to be
discarded, on the contrary, the shortness of the statement
itself guarantees truth.
• Normally, the court to satisfy whether the deceased was in a
t mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to
medical opinion. But where the eyewitness has said that the
deceased was in a t and conscious state to make the dying
declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
• Where the prosecution version differs from the version as
given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be
acted upon.

ANTICIPATION OF DEATH NOT NECESSARY

• It is not necessary as per Indian law.
• Case Analysis of Pakala Narayana Swami Vs.
King Emperor
The appellant was charged with the offense of murder. The body of
the deceased which was cut was recovered from a trunk in a
railway compartment on March 23, 1937. One of the items of
evidence against him adduced by the prosecution was a statement
by the deceased to his wife on March 20, 1937, that he received a
letter asking him to go to the house of the accused of receiving is
money due to him and that he was so going. On the question of its
admissibility in evidence, the Privy Council- observed "The
statement was rightly admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence

5
fi

fi
fi
fi
 Act.

For admissibility under the section, the statement may be made

before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has
any reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances must be
circumstances of the transaction general expressions indicating
fear/or suspicion whether of an individual or/otherwise and not
directly related to the occasion of the death will not be admissible.

But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to

the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reason for so
proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that
he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of
them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether
the person was unknown, or was not the person accused.

Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person

accused. Circumstances of the transaction is a phrase that no doubt
conveys some limitation. It is not as broad as the analogous use in
circumstantial evidence which includes evidence of all relevant
facts.

It is one the other hand narrower than 'res gestae'. Circumstances

must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence though
as for instance, in a case of prolonged poisoning they may be
related to dates at considerable distance from the date of the actual
fatal dose. It will be observed that circumstances are of the
transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant.

It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other

than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for
the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that the cause of
(the declarant's death comes into question. In the present case, the
cause of the deceased's death comes into question. The
transaction is in which the deceased was murdered on March 21 or
22 and his body was) found in a trunk proved to be bought on
behalf of the accused.

The statement made by the deceased on March 20 or 21 that he

was setting out to the place where the accused lived, and to meet a

6

 person, the wife of the: accused, who lived in the accused's house,
appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances
of the transaction which resulted in his death."

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DYING DECLARATION

Dying declaration is admissible in evidence being heresay as an exception to the

general rule of evidence that heresay evidence is not admissible. Admissibility of
dying declaration is based on the maxim "Nemo Moriturus Prassumttur Mentire"
which means the man will not meet with his maker with a lie in his mouth. Mathew
Arnold said " truth lies upon the lips of dying man". It is also said by Richard II "where
words are scare, They are seldom spent in vein; They breath the truth, That breath
their words in pain". (See M. Monir, law of evidence, page 164). In Ravi Kumar v
State of Tamilnadu AIR 2006 SC 1448 it was held by the Supreme court that dying
declaration is admissible upon the consideration that declarant has made it in
extremity when maker is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is

7

 gone, when every motive of the falsehood is silence and mind is induced by the most
powerful consideration to speak the truth.
Therefore, much weight is given to the dying declaration as an evidence. But as
maker of the dying declaration is not subject to the cross examination, Court always
is scrutinize that it must be of such nature as inspires the Court with it correctness. It
can be said that Court must satis ed that dying declaration is not product of tutoring,
prompting and imagination, or conducive.
Further, it is not absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form sole basis
of conviction unless corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is rule of
prudence(Panneerselvam v state of Tamil nadu (2008) 17 SCC 190). A dying
declaration which is truthful, consistent, coherent and without any in rmity don't need
corroboration.
Adying declaration which was recorded by the competent magistrate in the proper
manner such as question and answer, and as practicable in the words of the maker
of the declaration, stands on mush higher footing than a dying declaration which
depend upon oral testimony. The Court has to examine the circumstances, such as
opportunity of the dying man of observation, whether the capacity of the man to
remember the facts stated, had not impaired at the time of making statement, that
the statement is consistent, if maker has several opportunity of making it ,and it has
been made at earliest opportunity and is not result of tutoring by the interested
parties. (read the facts of Kushal rao v State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1958 SC22). In
Paniben v State oof Gujarat (AIR 1992 SC 1817) Supreme court laid down certain
guidelines while dealing with dying declaration.
(i) With all mentioned above about the evidentiary value of dying declaration it is held
that
(ii) Incase dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without
corroboration.
iii) Dying declaration which surfers from in rmity cannot be the basis of conviction.
(iv) Merely the dying declaration does not contain details, is short, is not be
discarded
(v) Where there are more than one version of dying declaration, the rst in point of
time be preferred.
Where the dying declaration is incomplete by the reason of death but clear and
makes a clear accusation against the accused, it can be relied for conviction.

Exceptions to Dying Declaration

The exceptions to the Dying Declaration stipulate, wherein
the statements made by dying person aren’t admissible:
• If the purpose of the death of the deceased isn’t in
question: If the deceased made declaration earlier than
his death that something except the cause of his, that
statement is not admissible in proof.

8

fi
fi
fi
fi
 • If the declarer is not a competent witness: Declarer
need to be medically t. A dying declaration of a child
is inadmissible. In Amar Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1996 Cr LJ (MP) 1582, it is held that without
proof of mental or physical tness, the death statement
isn’t always reliable.
• Contradictory statements: If a declarant made more
than one declaration and all are contradictory, then all
those declarations lose their evidentiary value.
• Unsound Person: The statement of unsound mind
cannot be relied upon.
• Inconsistent declaration: Inconsistent death statement
has no evidential price.
• If statement pertains to the death of another individual:
If the statement made through deceased does not
relate to his demise, but to the death of another
individual, it is not applicable.
• If death declaration is not in line with prosecution: If
declaration is inconsistent with the case of prosecution
it isn’t always admissible.
• In uenced declaration: dying declaration should not be
in uenced.
• Incomplete Declaration: Incomplete declarations are
not admissible.

Conclusion
A dying declaration is an important piece of evidence in
legal proceedings. It is a statement made by a person who
is on the verge of death, explaining the circumstances of
their death. The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is
signi cant, and it can even be the sole basis for a
conviction without the need for additional corroboration.

9

fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
 There are certain principles associated with dying
declarations. The statement should be voluntary and true,
as the imminent approach to death ensures the credibility of
the declaration. It is considered on par with other types of
evidence and should be evaluated based on the
surrounding circumstances and the weight of the evidence.
When recording a dying declaration, a competent
magistrate or a medical of cer should document it. The
declaration should be materially complete and faithful to the
words of the declarant. Ensuring that the declarant was of
sound mind and not in uenced by coercion or imagination
is important.
The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is signi cant as
it can be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
It is considered credible due to the belief that a person will
not lie before their imminent death. However, doubts or
suspicious circumstances may affect its reliability.

10

fl
fi
fi
 11

 12

 Expert Opinion And It's Relevancy Under
Indian Evidence Act,1872
Evidence plays a major role in every judicial proceeding whether it is
criminal or civil case. The use of expert opinion was rst allowed by Lord
Mans eld. Lord Mans eld allowed an expert's opinion in the facts of
other witnesses in the case of Folkes Vs. Chadd in the year 1782.

In the late 20th century the common legal system stated some duties as
to how expert opinions are to be used as evidences. Opinion of an
expert plays vital role in evidence. This article focuses on the expert's
opinion and how the opinions stated by an expert are relevant.
Generally, a witness is served with summons to describe the mere facts
of the case, the expert is also considered as witness even if he does not
know the facts of the case.

The opinion of an expert can reveal some truths about the dead such as
the time and cause of death. The duty of an expert is to provide
impartial, independent, and unbiased opinion to the court.

Who Is An Expert:
An expert is a person who has been trained or is skilled or has
knowledge, experience, or education in technical or scienti c and
capable of drawing opinions and conclusions from the facts observed by
him or noticed by the others.

For example: If the murder weapon is unknown, the court may call a
forensic expert to clarify what the weapon was by observing the
sustained injury is relevant. Also, a ballistic expert's opinion on a
particular gun used as a murder weapon concerning the unique
markings is relevant.
In the case, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others it was
held that an expert has to be cross examined in the court along with
providing opinion as assigned also some functions of experts were
stated.

Prerequisites of an expert evidence:

In the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. &
Ors.The court laid some requirements of the opinion of an expert also

13

fi
fi
fi
fi
 the court stated that the opinion of expert is out of knowledge of any
layman.

The requirements are as follows:

• Expert must be within recognized eld of expertise,
• An opinion must follow reliable principles,
• Expert must be quali ed in discipline.

Duties
1. An expert is supposed to advice the judge to come to conclusion
independently
2. His evidence must be advisory,
3. The expert evidence is not the fact of the case.

Types of expert witness:

• Medical:
There are many medical experts who are called by the court to
provide their opinion on criminal cases such as rape and murder
cases. Medical expert opinion contains the opinion of doctors,
nurses, laboratory assistants

• Accounting and securities:

These experts are necessary when there is fraud,
misappropriation, breach of obligations in customer-seller
relationships also when any bank engages with fraud.

• Forensic:
Forensic expert play a major role than any other expert in criminal
cases.
A forensic expert may be a biologist or a psychologist. Most of the
law agencies employ a forensic expert so that he/she can be an
expert witness whenever court requires.

• Vocational:
Vocational expert does not need to have special knowledge or
skill. They just have to provide information on the fact that a
particular employee who is stated as disabled can work or not.

14

fi
fi
 • Mental health
Mental health experts are called to provide opinion on the mental
tness of a person.

Opinion of expert:
A belief or judgment given by an expert in a subject is an expert opinion.

Section 45 states that when the court has to form an opinion about:
1. Foreign law,
2. Of science or art,
3. Identity of handwriting,
4. Identity of Finger impressions

The opinions upon that point of specially skilled persons on a particular

eld are relevant facts. Expert witnesses include doctors, Psychiatrists,
ballistic experts, and other professionals instructed by the court to
provide an opinion about a fact in legal proceedings.

In the case of Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v/s. State Of Andhra

Pradesh, the court held that the absence of nger impressions does not
indicate an absence of a particular person at the scene. In the case
where the court has to form an opinion about the science, opinion of
such skilled persons in science is a relevant fact, as seen in the case of
Sulochana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C.
• Opinion for foreign law:
The opinion of an expert in foreign is de ned in section 38 read
with 45 of the act. It states that the law contained in a book of
speci c country is relevant. For this, an expert needs to be well
versed with the law books of a particular country in order to
provide his opinion in foreign law.

• Opinion of ballistic expert:

A rearms expert can give opinion in the case where a gun is
involved as a murder weapon.
He can determine the distance by looking at the wound and the type of
gun with the bullet can be determined.

Sec. 293 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 deals with the reports of
speci c Government scienti c experts in the court of law. This section
states that when the court thinks t may order to submit reports required

15
fi
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 for the analysis and can send summons to speci c experts to take part
in proceedings to clear the doubts on a particular case.

Clause 4 of section 293 names some experts to whom this section

applies they are:
1. Any chemical or assistant chemical examiner to government
2. Chief inspector of explosives,
3. Director of a ngerprint bureau,
4. Director of Haffkeine institute, Bombay;
5. Serologist to government,
6. Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central
Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science
Laboratory,
7. Any other government expert noti ed by the central government
for this purpose.

Opinion of electronic evidence:

Section 45 A allows opinion of an examiner of electronic evidence in the
case where the court is willing to form an opinion on any matter relating
to communication or information stored in a computer, or digital form, the
opinion of examiner is a relevant fact.

For instance, a person named Rahul is an accused in a criminal

conspiracy case, for necessary evidence his mobile phone contains
communications made by him can be examined by an expert.

Relevancy Of Expert Opinion:

Section 46 states that the facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if
they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of the expert, when
such opinions are relevant it means that the facts which are not relevant
will be relevant if the opinion of expert is supported by them.

Illustration:
A person named Ram, who is a serial killer, has poisoned so many, here
the fact that Ankit was poisoned by Ram by observing the symptoms
exhibited by all the victims according to the acceptance or denial of the
expert is relevant.

Opinion of handwriting expert:

When the court needs an opinion as to the person, by whom a document

16

fi
fi
fi
 is written or signed, any other person acquainted with the handwriting
whether it is supposed to be done or not by the accused or questioned
person is a relevant fact. Section 47 deals with this.

The section states that every person acquainted with the handwriting of
a particular person is relevant. It means that the person who is witness
to signature or written document.

In the case of shankarappa v. Sushilabai it was held that the wife can
be considered as the person acquainted with the handwriting of her
husband.

Methods of proving signature/ handwriting in court of law:

1. By calling the person who has signed or written the document,
2. By calling the person who witnessed this,
3. By the opinion of handwriting expert,
4. By comparing the disputed signature or written document with the
admitted one,
5. By circumstantial evidence,
6. By the evidence of the person acquainted with the handwriting of
the accused.

In the case of Prahlad Saran Gupta v Bar Council of India it was held
that the opinion by a handwriting expert is the nal and there is no need
to con rm it, as a result it stated the importance of expert opinion.

Opinion as to electronic signature:

Section 47 A states that when a court needs to form any opinion as to
digital signature, the opinion of the certifying authority issuing certi cate
is relevant.

Opinion as to existence of a right or custom:

When the court needs to form any opinion as to the existence any of the
general right or custom, the opinion of the person who would be likely to
know the right or custom if existed or not, is relevant.

For example:
The fact that the certain class of people of the village can drink water
from particular well can be proved by the opinion of the elders of the
village.

17

fi
fi
fi
 In the case of Radha Krishna Kandolkar v/s. Tukaram, a person was
allowed to draw water from a pond for about 30 years. The court held
that drawing water since long ago does not make any kind of custom, a
custom has to be declared by certain class of people or their elders.

Illustration: The right of particular class of persons of a village to use

the water of a particular well is general right.

Opinion as to usages and tenets:

According to section 49 of the act when the court needs to form any
opinion on:
• The tenets of any group of men or a family
• The wages of any group of men or a family,
• The constitution and government of any religious or charitable
foundation,
• The meaning of words used in particular districts or any particular
class of people,
• The opinions of person having special knowledge are relevant.

Opinion on relationship:
Section 50 of the act states that when the court needs to form any
opinion on any of the relationship from one person to other the opinion
which is expressed by the conduct as to the existence of relationship by
any of the family member, or any of the person who has special means
of knowledge on the subject is relevant.

Exceptions where opinion of relationship is not suf cient

1. To prove marriage in proceedings under divorce act, 1869;
2. Prosecutions under sections of Indian penal code,1860:
• Section 494: whoever having husband or wife remarry even
when they are alive is punishable with imprisonment of term
described may extend to 7 years, also shall be liable to ne.
• Section 495: the person if conceals the former marriage to
the subsequent one is punishable with imprisonment of term
described may extend to 10 years, also shall be liable to ne.
• Section 497: whoever has sexual inter course with whom he
knows or believes to be wife of another man without the
consent of that man is punishable with imprisonment of term
described may extend to 5 years, also shall be liable to ne.

18

fi
fi
fi
fi
 However, it was decriminalized by the Supreme Court in the
case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India in September 2018.
• Section 498: whoever being the husband or a relative of the
woman subjects such woman to cruelty is punishable with
imprisonment of term described may extend to 3 years, also
shall be liable to ne.

In the case of Sree Ram Didwani Vs. Gauri Shankar it was held that
for an opinion in existence of relationship, the opinion of a family
member or any person specialized in this subject is relevant.

In the case of Bant Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh, there was a dispute in
matter of suit of the property where the plaintiff stated defendant as his
sister. The opinion of his brother in law who was 80 years old and had
good knowledge of his family member was held as the relevant
evidence.

Grounds of opinion:
Section 51 of the act states that opinion of any living person and the
grounds on which the opinion is based are relevant.

Example: experiments done by an expert to form an opinion.

Conclusion:
An expert opinion is essential in criminal case so as to determine the
cause of death which can be done by forensic experts. An expert opinion
is not conclusive but it paves a way to serve justice in an ef cient
manner.

Nowadays, due to pandemic covid-19 digital signatures have a major

importance than manual for this reason section 45 A, 47 A has greater
importance. An expert opinion is not questioned in the court of law
unless the court nds any fraud. The most important expert opinion
provided are of medical expert and ballistic expert particularly in a
criminal case. This proves that how an opinion of an expert is necessary
in judicial proceedings.

19

fi
fi
fi
 Admissions in Evidence Act
What is Admission in Evidence Act?
Admissions are de ned under Section 17 to 31 under
the Indian Evidence Act ,1872. Sections 17 to 23 deal with
general admission whereas Sections 24 to 31 deal with
Confession. A Confession is an admission of guilt by the
accused in a criminal case which is acceptable and valid
in evidence.[1]
Admission in evidence act can either be self-harming or
self-serving (serve own interest). Self-harming evidence are
acceptable evidence in a court of law. Admission can be
done by silence too.
Section 17- An Admission is a statement, oral or
documentary [or contained in electronic form], which
suggests any inference as to fact in issue or relevant fact,
and which is made by any of the persons, and under the
circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.[2]
Basant Singh v. Janki Singh[3]
The Supreme court held:
• Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act ,1872 makes no
distinction between an admission made by a party in a
pleading and other admissions. Under Indian law, an
admission made by a party in a plaint signed and
veri ed by him may be used as evidence against him
in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be
regarded as conclusive and is open to the party to
show that it is not true.
• All the statements made in the plaint are admissible as
evidence. The court is, however, not bound to accept
all the statements as correct. The court may accept
some of the statements and reject the rest.

20

fi
fi
 [The court rejected the statements which were against the
plaintiff in the present case, because of other
circumstances.]
Types of Admission in Evidence Act
Formal Admission under Evidence Act
Formal Admissions are judicial admissions, and in such a
case, there is no need to prove the facts admitted. Section
58 of the Indian Evidence Act says that the facts which are
judicially admitted need not be proved.
Informal Admissions in Evidence Act
Whereas Informal Admissions are usually made in casual
conversation in ignorance of the possibility of it being used
in future litigation. For example, with friends, family,
neighbours, and so on.[4]
Admission As A Waiver Of Proof
When parties make an admission of fact, it, in turn,
amounts to a waiver of proof of such a fact. If a party admits
any fact on its own then there is no need to give evidence
to prove such a fact.
Admissions When Admissible
1. Admission must relate to the subject matter.
2. Admission must always be in the nature of self-
harming form or statement.
3. Admission must be made by persons and in
circumstances mentioned under Section 18 to 20 of
the Indian Evidence Act.
Who Can Make Admissions?

21

 Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules
regarding as to who can make an admission. According to
this section, there are ve classes of persons whose
statements will be considered as an admission in a suit.
These ve classes are: –
Party to the proceedings
The statements made by the parties to a proceeding as
against himself are considered as relevant admission in
Evidence Act. Under this Section, the term ‘parties’ not only
means the persons who appear on the record in that
capacity but also includes those persons who are parties to
a suit without appearing. Persons who have an interest in
the subject matter of the suit but are not parties on the
record are also considered as parties in the proceedings
and their statements have the same relevancy as the
parties on record. Similarly, a person who although appears
as a party on the record but has no real interest in the
subject matter will not have any effect through his
admission against the person he is appearing on behalf of.

By the agent of such party who is

authorised
The statements made by an agent in a suit would be
admissible against the person he is representing. The
statements made by an agent are, however, binding only
when they are made during the continuance of his agency.
So, when the agent’s right to interference has come to an
end any statement made by him after that will not have any
effect on the principal.

22

fi
fi
 Suitor is a representative character, when
he held that character
When a person such as trustees, administrators, executors
etc., sue or are sued in a representative character, any
statement made by them will only be admissible if made in
their representative character. Any declarations made by
them in their personal capacity will not be taken as an
admission in Evidence Act.
Party having pecuniary or proprietary
interests
In any such suit where several persons are interested
jointly in the subject matter of the suit, then any admission
made by anyone of the parties will be taken as an
admission against himself as well as the other parties jointly
interested in the subject matter. It does not matter whether
the persons jointly interested in the subject matter are suing
or being sued jointly or separately. However, for this rule to
apply there has to be a prima facie foundation showing that
joint interest exists between the parties suing or being sued.
Predecessor in the title (who was in the
title before me)
Any statement made by the predecessor-in-title from who
the party to the suit derives his title will be admissible. But
this will only be held as an admission in Evidence Act if the
predecessor-in-title made the declaration while still holding
the title and not after the title has been transferred. The
statement made by the former owner will not be considered
as an admission as against the parties if it was made title
has been passed.

23

 Section 19- Person Whose Position or
Liability in Question Can Make
Admissions.
As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit
are not considered as admissions but Section 19 is an
exception to this rule. It refers to the statements made by a
third party as against himself when it affects his position or
liability and when such liability or position is relevant to be
proved as against the party to the suit. The statements
made by the third party, in this case, would only be relevant
if the liability or position of that third party still exists at the
time of the suit.
Section 20- Admissions by persons
expressly referred to by the party to suit
This section refers to when a party to the suit refers to a
third party regarding some information a matter of dispute.
Under this section, any statement made by such party will
be taken as an admission against the person who referred
to the third party. This Section is another exception to the
general rule that statements made by strangers are not
considered as an admission.
Admission means conceding something against the person
making the admission. The sections deal only with
admissions oral and written. Admissions by conduct are not
covered by the sections. The relevancy of such admissions
by conduct depends upon Section 8 and its Explanations.
Admission to Its Evidentiary Value
Admission is not conclusive proof of the fact admitted as it
is a piece of prima facia evidence only. But it may operate

24

 as an estoppel. The person can be stopped to deny the
truth of the statement.

The admissions referred to in the section are known as

evidentiary admissions, i.e., admissions of which evidence
can be given. The witness can say in court that he heard
such and such a person make such and such a statement.
The Act deals with another kind of admissions, called formal
admissions dealt with in Section 58. These are deliberately
made with respect to the matters in issue, which are before
the court; whereas evidentiary admissions are not made in
contemplation of the particular litigation.
The Supreme Court in Banarasi Das vs. Kanshi Ram,
1963 said, ‘It is a weak type of evidence, and the court may
reject it if the contrary is proved.’
In Bishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarka Prasad, 1974, the
Supreme Court met further observations-
1. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves
though they are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted.
2. Admission duly proved are admissible in evidence
irrespective of the fact whether the party making them
appeared as a witness or not.
3. Clari cation: Admissions will be admissible even when
the party is not called as a witness.
The purpose of contradicting a witness in Section 145 and
the object of proving admission in the Evidence Act here is
entirely different. In case of contradiction, it will be
necessary to put the statement to the witness so that he will
have an opportunity to explain it. But it is not so required for
admission.
In this context, Justice Krishna Iyer pointed out that
admission is substantive evidence. While the purpose of
section 145 is to clear doubt on the veracity (accuracy,
truthfulness, correctness, faithfulness, conformity to

25

fi
 facts) of the witness and does not become substantive
evidence.
In the case of Tara Singh v. State,[5] the court held:
The evidence in the committal court cannot be used in the
Sessions Court unless the witness is confronted with his
previous statement as required by Section 145 of the
Evidence Act. Of course, the witness can be cross-
examined about the previous statement and that cross-
examination can be used to destroy his testimony in the
Sessions court. If that serves the purpose of the
prosecution, then nothing more is required, but if the
prosecution wishes to go further and use the previous
testimony to the contrary as substantive evidence, then it
must confront the witness with those parts of it which are to
be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Then only can
the matter be brought in as substantive evidence under
Section 288.
Admission As Estoppel
Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act says that admissions
are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, but it may
operate as an estoppel. A person can’t deny of the fact he
admitted in court. And if it is treated as estoppel, rules
of Section 115-117 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply.

In considering the value to be attached to an admission, it

must be considered as a whole, though it is not necessary
that it should either be believed as a whole or disbelieved
as a whole, i.e., portions of it can be believed and other
portions disbelieved. Though statements made in a book
cannot be considered as conclusive admissions, they can
be taken as additional circumstances along with other
circumstances.[6]
When Admissions May Be Proved?
26

 According to Section 21, Admission may be used against
the party making the admission but it cannot be used by the
party who makes the admission for his own use. This
Section further lays down three exceptions to this rule.
These exceptions are: –
1. Admissions falling under Section 32: This exception
enables a person to prove his own statement where the
circumstances are such that if he were dead, the statement
would have been relevant in dispute between third parties
(when veracity is not in doubt it can be brought).
2. Statement as to the bodily feeling of the state of mind
falling under Section 14: The statement of men’s mind or
body is relevant under Section 14 and the statement
narrating such facts which indicate the state of mind or
body made at or about the time when such state existed
and which is accompanied by conduct are relevant.
3. Statement otherwise relevant, then it may be proved as
an otherwise relevant fact and not as admissions.
A statement which is of the nature of an admission in
Evidence Act on a mixed question of fact and law cannot be
treated as an admission under Section 17, because only an
admission of fact binds the maker and not an admission on
a question of law.[7]
An admission made by a person, whether amounting to
confession or not, cannot be split up and part of it used
against him. An admission must be used either as a whole
or not at all.[8]

Admissions When Irrelevant [Ss.22, 22-A,

23]
When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents
Are Relevant:

27

 According to Section 22, when there is a document then
nobody can be allowed to prove the content of that
document. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:
–
• In the case the party is entitled to give secondary
evidence of the contents of the documents then he can
rely on oral Admission.
• In the case where the original document is lost or if it is
in the possession of the opposition party, then also the
party may make oral Admission.
In the context of a gift deed, one of the donors pleaded that
he was a minor at the time of the execution of the deed. His
statement in the deed was that he was of 22 years. He was
held to be bound by his statement in the deed. It was his
burden to show that he was below the majority at that time.
[9]
The document must be proved by the document itself. But
when the document is not available, then secondary
evidence may be given for it under Section 65.
Section 59 says all facts except the contents of documents
or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
Section 63(5) says oral accounts of the contents of a
document given by some person who has seen it.
When Oral Admissions As To Contents Of Electronic
Records Are Relevant
Section 22A Inserted by IT Act 2000. When the
genuineness of electronic records produced is in question,
then only oral admissions as to the contents of electronic
records are relevant.
When Admission in Civil Cases Is Relevant
Section 23 –Where there is an agreement to the fact either
express or implied that evidence of admission will not be
given, then it will not be produced before the court. It is just

28

 to encourage the parties to settle their matter of dispute
with full freedom where they can diverse the things.
It is only applicable to civil cases and does not extend to
criminal cases. According to this Section, an Admission in a
civil case will not be relevant if it is declared that upon the
express condition made by the parties to the suit that the
Admission should not be given or under some
circumstances, the court infers that the parties have made
an agreement that Admissions will not be given.
Section 21 lays down that when an Admission is given
without prejudice then such Admission will not be
considered as relevant.

Types and Admissibility of Confession under Indian

Evidence Act

Introduction

A confession is one of the most potent pieces of

evidence in criminal law. It is essentially an
acknowledgment or admission made by an accused
person, stating that they committed the offense with
which they are charged.

Confessions can be a vital component of criminal trials,

often being the proverbial “smoking gun” that proves a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However,
the use of confessions in the legal system must be
carefully regulated to ensure fairness and the protection
of individual rights.

29

 In this post, we will delve into the key aspects of
confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, from
de nitions to admissibility criteria, safeguards, and the
role of confessions in criminal cases.

Confession under Indian Evidence Act

In India, the rules and regulations governing the
admissibility and use of confessions are provided by the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Act sets the standards
for what constitutes a valid confession, the
circumstances under which confessions are admissible,
and the consequences of a confession.

Section 24 of the Act de nes a confession as a

statement made by an accused person which, “admits
any fact in issue or relevant fact, and that statement will
be admissible in evidence against him.”

This de nition underscores the crucial element of an

admission by the accused regarding a fact that is
relevant to the case. In other words, a confession is an
acknowledgment of the accused’s involvement in the
alleged criminal activity.

In the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, the

Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the
voluntariness of a confession. The court emphasized the
importance of a free and voluntary confession. It ruled
that if a confession is found to be involuntary, it cannot
be admitted as evidence.

30

fi
fi
fi
 Difference between Admission and
Confession

Admission Confession
An admission is a A confession is a speci c
statement made by a type of admission, typically
party to a case (either a related to criminal cases. It is
plaintiff or defendant) a statement in which a
that is against their own person admits to having
interest in the case. It committed a crime.
can be either oral or in
writing.
Admissions can be A confession can be used to
used as evidence establish the guilt of the
against the party who accused.
made the admission.
Admissions may be To be admissible in court, a
voluntary or involuntary, confession must be made
and they can be used to voluntarily, without coercion,
establish the truth of duress, or inducement. If a
certain facts. confession is obtained
through improper means, it
may be considered
inadmissible.
Admissions are not The Indian Evidence Act
limited to criminal cases contains provisions
and can occur in civil (Sections 24 to 30) that
cases as well. govern the admissibility of
confessions in criminal

31

fi
 Admissibility of Confession under
Indian Evidence Act
The admissibility of confessions in court is a matter of
paramount importance. Confessions, as vital pieces of
evidence, can signi cantly impact the outcome of a
case. Therefore, the Indian Evidence Act lays down
speci c rules concerning the admissibility of
confessions.

Section 25: Confessions to Police Of cers Not

Admissible

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that

confessions made to police of cers are not admissible in
court. The primary rationale behind this rule is to
safeguard against the potential for coercion, duress, or
abuse that an accused person might face when dealing
with law enforcement.

This rule serves a critical purpose in the Indian criminal

justice system. It helps protect the rights of accused
individuals by ensuring that they are not compelled to
confess to a crime under undue pressure or intimidation
from the police.

It is worth noting that Section 25 applies not only to

confessions made during police custody but also to any

32

fi
fi
fi
fi
 statements given to a police of cer during the course of
an investigation, irrespective of where they are made.

In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad,

the Supreme Court of India examined the admissibility of
a confession obtained by the police. The court held that
a confession made to the police is inadmissible and
explained that confessions made to the police are more
likely to be tainted by fear or intimidation.

Section 26 – Confessions to Magistrates Admissible

In contrast to the general inadmissibility of confessions

to police of cers, Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act
allows confessions made to a magistrate to be
admissible in court. However, it sets out speci c
conditions that must be met for such confessions to be
admissible:

i. Confession Must Be Made to a Magistrate

The confession should be made before a magistrate and

in the presence of a magistrate. This is a fundamental
requirement, as the magistrate’s role is seen as a
safeguard against coercion and intimidation.

ii. Adequate Caution and Advisement

The magistrate must also exercise caution and

advisement. This involves making the accused aware of
their legal rights and the consequences of making a

33

fi
fi
fi
 confession. The accused person should be fully
cognizant of the implications of their confession. This
advisement process further contributes to ensuring the
voluntariness of the confession.

c. Voluntariness of Confession

The core criterion for the admissibility of any confession,

whether made to a magistrate or not, is its voluntariness.
This means that a confession must be given freely and
without any undue in uence, inducement, threat, or
promise.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly speci es

that a confession is admissible if it is voluntary. It is
essential to determine whether the confession was
made by the accused of their own free will or if it was
extracted through pressure or improper in uence. If a
confession is found to be coerced or made under
duress, it is inadmissible.

The onus of proving the voluntariness of a confession

rests on the prosecution. In other words, it is the
prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate that the
confession was made voluntarily.

Confessions Affecting Co-accused

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with
confessions that affect both the accused and a co-
accused. It states that if a confession is made by one

34

fl
fl
fi
 accused that incriminates not only themself but also a
co-accused, it is admissible in evidence against the co-
accused as well.

This provision is grounded in the principle of fairness

and consistency. If one accused makes a confession
that implicates another, it is considered relevant to both
parties, and therefore it can be admitted as evidence
against both.

However, the court must be satis ed about the

authenticity and voluntariness of the confession. The
admissibility of such confessions often hinges on the
overall facts and circumstances of the case.

Retracted Confession under Indian

Evidence Act
In many criminal cases, the accused may initially make
a confession but later retract it during the course of the
trial. This presents a complex legal issue regarding the
use of retracted confessions as evidence.

The key question that arises in such situations is

whether a retracted confession is admissible in court.
The general principle is that a retracted confession is
admissible if it is found to be voluntary at the time it was
made. This is consistent with the principle that the
admissibility of a confession depends on its
voluntariness, irrespective of subsequent disavowals by
the accused.
35

fi
 However, courts must carefully consider the
circumstances under which the confession was
retracted. It is not uncommon for accused individuals to
retract confessions due to external pressures, fear, or
coercion. In such cases, the court should critically
evaluate the retraction and assess whether the initial
confession was indeed voluntary.

Conclusion
Confessions are highly relevant in criminal cases
because they can provide direct evidence of an accused
person’s guilt. When a confession is considered
voluntary and admissible, it can be a compelling piece of
evidence that supports the prosecution’s case.

However, it’s crucial to recognize that confessions are

not infallible, and they should not be the sole basis for a
conviction. Courts often require corroborative evidence
to strengthen the case. Corroboration provides a layer of
protection against wrongful convictions and helps
ensure that the legal system adheres to the principles of
fairness and justice.

36