Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................4

1. ADMISSIONS AND CONEFSSIONS: A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION..............................6

1.1 Meaning and interpretation of the term admission................................................................6

1.2 Meaning and interpretation of the term confession...............................................................7

2. CONSTITUTENTS OF ADMISSION AND CONFESSION.....................................................9

2.1 What amounts to admission?.................................................................................................9

2.2 What amounts to confessions?.............................................................................................11

3.1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS......................................13

4.1 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15
 CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

INTRODUCTION
Admission and confession are two very important concepts used in law of evidence by lawyers
to strengthen their cases in the eyes of the jury. Both admissions and confessions are used as
sources of evidence. Section 17 to Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with
admissions and confessions. Though they appear to be similar, there is a narrow line of
difference between admissions and confessions. In simple words, admission is when a person
acknowledges or admits the facts in a statement. On the other hand when an admission is made
by an accused person that he has committed a crime, it is called confession. Confession is the of
acknowledging one's involvement in a crime or wrong doing. However, the definition of the term
confession does not find place in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So far, the definition given
under section 17 of the Act1 for admission becomes applicable to confession also. On close
analysis of Sections 17 to 31, it can be said that statement is the genus admission is the species
and confession is the sub-species. This observation regarding admissions and confessions was
made in the famous case of Sahoo v. State of U.P2.

Since the term confession is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is the
duty of the courts to interpret the term confession. According to Sir James Stephen,

A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating
or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.3

This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit
who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that
confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt.

1 Secrion 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2 Sahoo v. State of U.P, AIR 1966 S.C. 42.
3 Stpehen, J.F. : A Digest of the Law of Evidence 12th Ed. 21.
Lord Atkin took a similar stand in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor and observed
that,

A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the
facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a
conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession.4

The same was upheld in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and in the case of A.
Nagesia v. Stae of Bihar.5 The term admission is already defined in Section 17 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore do not need much interpretation by the judiciary.

The following chapters of this project will deal with the meaning of the term admissions and
confessions, statements that qualify as admissions and statements that qualify as confessions, and
the major differences between the terms admissions and confessions.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
In this project, the researcher intends to bring out the true meaning of the term admission and
confession as used in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the help of case laws and also to
portray the narrow line of difference through case laws and judgments. The researcher aims in
bringing out those conditions which are to be satisfied for a statement to become an admission
and a statement to become a confession are also discussed in detail. This paper aims in
highlighting the acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning attributed to the term confession by the Indian judiciary to the term
confession?
2. When is a statement considered to be an admission and when is it considered to be a
confession?
3. What are the major differences between confessions and admissions in accordance With
Indian violence Act, 1872?

4 Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47

5 Nagesia v. Stae of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted to complete this paper is doctrinal. The primary source of
research is treaties and conventions. Existing secondary data has been analyzed and no new data
has been created. The paper follows majorly inductive reasoning, beginning with specific
observations and measures, to detect patterns and regularities, formulating some tentative
hypotheses that can be explored, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or
theories.
1. ADMISSIONS AND CONEFSSIONS: A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

1.1 Meaning and interpretation of the term admission

Admission in laymans term is merely a voluntary acknowledgment of facts relevant to the issue.
All statements are divided into two, self harming statements and self interest statements. All self
harming statements are considered to be admissions though all admissions need not be self
harming. It is not necessary that every admission should be against the interest of the person
making the admission. The term admission is defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act 6.
According to this Section7, an admission is a statement ,[oral or documentary, or contained in
electronic form] which suggest any inference as to facts in issue or relevant fact, and which is
made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances mentioned in the Act. Thus according
to this Section, any statement which suggest any inference as to facts in issue or relevant facts
are considered to be admissions. Facts in issue is that fact which is asserted or denied in a
judicial proceeding. An admission is a statement of facts which waives or dispenses with the
production of evidence by conceding the fact asserted by the opponent is true. It can be said that
admission is a statement made by a person in relation to the facts in issue or relevant facts.
However not only statements made thus cannot be said to be admissions. Only those statements
made under those circumstances as prescribed in Section 18 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 are considered to be admissions and will be admissible as evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act.8 Also only the statements made by those persons as mentioned in the Evidence
Act, 1872, are admissible as admissions.

Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter
in dispute, is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention. 9 The concept behind this is that
nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed
true. For example, unless A stole money from B, it is not normal for A to say that he stole
money from B. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a
person.10
6 Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872)
7 Section 17, Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872)
8 Supra note 6
9 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 148, (25th ed. 2014)
10 Hanumanth Deshmukh, http://hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Admission.html, last visited on (16th March, 2016,
20:18(IST))
In the case of Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail11, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that,
admissions of a party in the proceedings be it in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and
does not need any further corroboration. Also, in the case of Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer 12,
the Supreme Court held that, admission is the best piece of evidence against the party making it
and, though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker based on the principle that what a party
himself admits to be true may be reasonably presumed to be true so that until the presumption is
rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be free. Whatever the case may be the effect of the
admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made. This was held in the case of
E.C.T Farming Society case.13

An admission must be clear, specific and unambiguous and in the own words of the person
making it and has to be proved so. In the case of H.G Ramachandra Rao v. Master Srikantha 14, it
was held that in order to be worthy of being received in evidence, considered and place reliance
upon, an admission should be a clear cut and accurate statement. Admissions can be used in civil
as well as criminal proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

1.2 Meaning and interpretation of the term confession

Confession is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the courts have
attributed different meanings to the term confession through various judgments. Confession,
basically is an admission made at any time by any person who is charged with a crime.
According to Sir James Stephen,

A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating
or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.15

This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit
who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that
confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt.
Lord Atkin took a similar stand in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor and observed
that,
11 Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail, (2012) 8 SCC 516
12 Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724
13 E.C.T Farming Society case, AIR 1974 SC 1121

14 H.G Ramachandra Rao v. Master Srikantha, AIR 1997 Kant 347

15 Stpehen, J.F. : A Digest of the Law of Evidence 12th Ed. 21.
 A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the
facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a
conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession.16

In order to decide whether a statement is a confession or not, it must be read as a whole. A

confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all
the facts which constitute the offence. This has been held in the case of Dhanapati De v.
Emperor17. Also, a statement which merely suggests an inference that the accused committed a
crime does not amount to a confession, as was held in the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P 18.
However, an incriminating statement which is not an absolute confession but from which the
inference of guilt follows does amount to a confession as in the case of Queen Empress v.
Nana.19 A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter
or offence, cannot amount to confession. A statement made in such cases where the accused
admitted his complicity in crime merely by stating that he was in the company of the other
accused, who was responsible for the death of the deceased will not be considered as a
confession to his involvement in crime and therefore is inadmissible in evidence. 20 It was held in
Queen Empress v. Tribhovandas Manekchand21, that a confession which is inadmissible in a
criminal proceeding may be used as an admission in a civil proceeding.22

Thus the court has taken care of the deficiency in the laws and has interpreted the term
confession. The definition of the term confession, thus has evolved from the basic definition
given by Stephen in his digest and has taken more logical approaches in cases starting from the
case of Pakala Narayan Swamy23.

16 Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47

17 Dhanapati De v. Emperor, (1944) 2 Cal 312
18 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. AIR 1960 SC 409
19 Queen Empress v. Nana. (1889) 14 Bom 260, FB
20 Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State of Kerala, 1994 CrLJ 555 (Ker)
21 Queen Empress v. Tribhovandas Manekchand, (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom 131
22 Indian Law Premier, http://indialegal.blogspot.in/2008/04/admissions.html, last visited, 17th March, 2016
(12:39(IST))
23 Supra note 16
2. CONSTITUTENTS OF ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

2.1 What amounts to admission?

As already mentioned, any statement cannot be considered as an admission. In order to be an
admission, the statement should be clear, unambiguous, specific and should be in the own words
of the person making it. In addition to this, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with aspect of
valid persons who can make an admission, validity of admissions made by a third party, and also
in what circumstances statements are considered to be admissions and the evidentiary value of
the same. In this paper, the above said are considered to be the valid constituents of admissions.

Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act 24 lays down five classes of people who can make valid
admissions. This includes any party to the proceeding, agent authorized by such party, party
suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while holding such character. The
fourth includes persons who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter if the
proceeding during the continuance of such interest and lastly, persons from whom the parties to
the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such
interest.

According to this section, admissions are those statements made persons who are directly or
indirectly a party to a suit. As a result of this, statements made by an agent of a party to the suits
are also admissions. Statements made by persons who are suing or being sued in a representative
character are admissions, only if those statements were made by the party while being in that
representative character. In the case of Roopi Bai v. Mahaveer25, the court relied on the Supreme
Court judgment in the case of Jahuri Sah v. Dwaraka Prasad Jhunjhunwala 26 and held that when a
fact pleaded in a plain is not specifically denied but mere ignorance about its existence is
pleaded, it amounts to admissions unless by necessary implication it amounts to denial.
Similarly, statements made by persons who have a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
proceeding and statements made by persons from whom such interest is derived by the parties in
suit, are also admissions if they are made while the person making the admission had such an

24 Section 18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)

25 Roopi Bai v. Mahaveer AIR 1994 Raj 133
26 Jahuri Sah v. Dwaraka Prasad Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109
interest. For example, A bought a piece of land from B. Statements made by B at the time when
B was the owner of the land, are admissions against A.27

Section 1928 of the Act also says that statement made by persons whose position/liability is to be
proved as against any party to the suit are relevant if such a statement would have been relevant
between such person and the party to the suit if a suit would have been brought by or against
them when the statement was made whilst the person occupies such a position. Also statement
made by a person who has been expressly referred to by any party to the suit is admissible under
Section 2029 of the Act.30

An admission can be proved as against the person making the same or his agent or representative
but such a person is not allowed to prove it on his own behalf that is to say for his own good
except when it is of such a nature that the person making it were dead. In such a case the
statement would be relevant between third persons under section 32. Also an admission may be
proved by or on behalf of a party making it if such a statement consists of a statement of
existence of any state of body/mind, relevant or in issue made at about the time when such state
of body or mind existed and such a statement is accompanied by conduct. According to section
21(3) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if such a statement
was relevant otherwise than an admission for example as under Section 34 entries in books of
accounts or under section 35 which deals with relevancy of public documents.31

Though oral evidence is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 section 22 clearly
states that oral admissions as to the content of documents are not relevant unless and until the
party proposing to present such oral evidences shows that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence relating to the matter. Another case when such oral admission is admissible when the
genuineness of such a document is in question.32

27 Supra note 10
28 Section 19, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
29 Section 20, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
30 Aastha, Evidence Act: Confessions and Admissions, 2 nd March, 2015,
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Evidence-Act-Confessions-and-Admissions-6577.asp#.VuuiW_t97IX ,
(last visited 18th March, 2016 12:16(IST))

31 Id.
32 Supra Note 20
Section 23 of the act lays down the no prejudice clause that is admissions cannot be used to the
prejudice of the party. Section 23 pertains to those situations where in the parties enter into
negotiations and in that process make certain admissions. The section gives discretion to the
court to find out whether the circumstances were such wherein either of the party to the
proceeding or both of them intended to exclude the admission to be proved.33

2.2 What amounts to confessions?

Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to Section
2434, an admission in order to be considered as a confession should be voluntary. A confession
caused by inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant when it comes to a criminal proceeding.
The most important part to be satisfied in order to make an admission a confession is that, it
should be voluntary. However, a confession as under Section 24 made under the impression
caused by any such inducement, threat or promise is relevant when the impression is removed. 35
Any admission regarding commission of an offence or acknowledgment of guilt to a policeman
is not admissible as a confession. This is mentioned in Section 25 36 of the Indian Evidence Act.
This section is inflexible and bars any admission in the nature of a confession from being treated
as a confession in the Court if made to a police officer. The basic object behind this law is to
prevent the extortion of confessions by police officers who in order to gain credit by securing
convictions go to the length of positive torture.

Section 2637 of the Indian Evidence Act however expands the scope of admissions that may be
treated as confessions. In accordance with this Section, if an admission is in the nature of a
confession and is made voluntarily to a police officer in the presence of a magistrate it amounts
to a confession and can admitted in Court as a valid confession. The object behind this Section is
that, the public interest lies in prosecuting the criminals rather than compromising with them.

33 Aastha, Evidence Act: Confessions and Admissions, 2 nd March, 2015,

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Evidence-Act-Confessions-and-Admissions-6577.asp#.VuuiW_t97IX ,
(last visited 18th March, 2016 12:16(IST))
34 Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
35 Section 28, Inidan Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
36 Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
37 Section 26, Indian Evidence Act , 1872(Act 1 of 1872)
When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much information (whether it
amounts to confession or not) as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
This Section38 is based on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the
discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. This Section
comes into operation under two conditions. If and when certain facts are deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody and if the
information relates distinctly to the facts discovered. The broad ground for not admitting
confessions made under inducement, threat or promise to a police officer is the danger of
admitting false confessions, but the necessity for exclusion disappears in a case provided for by
this Section when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of facts in
consequence of the information given.39 The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact
is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby
that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.
Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from
some place of concealment, some object e.g. a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be
connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.40 This Section41 can be seen as an
exception to Section 2542 and Section 2643 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

A relevant Section does not become irrelevant just because it was made under the promise of
secrecy or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused or hen the accused was drunk
or in answer to questions which the accused need not have answered or in consequence of the
accused not receiving a warning that he was not bound to make and that it might be used against
him.44

In the case of Pati Soura v. State, it was held that self exculpatory statements do not amount to
confessions. In the case of a statement containing a self inculpatory matter, (that is in the case of

38 Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)

39 Bulaqi v. The Crown, (1928) 9 Lah 671, 675.
40 Pulukari Kottaya v Emperor
41 Supra Note 31
42 Supra Note 29
43 Supra Note 30
44 Section 29, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
self defense) do not amount to a confession if the self exculpatory part of it, if proved to be true
negates the offence that is alleged to be confessed.

3.1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

It is a usual statement that all confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions.
The underlying principle which governs a confession and an admission is the same and that
principle is that a statement made by a person against his own interest might be true. 45 There is a
narrow line of difference between admissions and confessions. Under the English law,
admissions are used in both civil and criminal cases while confessions are used only in criminal
cases. However, there is no law stating the same in India. As a result the courts have taken the
job of differentiating admissions and confessions.

The acid test that distinguishes a confession from an admission is that, where a conviction is
based on a statement alone, then that statement is an admission which amounts to be a
confession. In those cases, where a statement is admitted but conviction is based on that
statement alone but on placing reliance on supplementary evidence to support the statement
made is admission. This was held in the case of Ram Singh v. State Another 46. The test laid down
by the court is that, if the prosecution relies on the statement as being true it is confession and if
the statement is relied on because it is false it is admission. 47 In criminal cases a statement by
accused, not amounting to confession but giving rise to inference that the accused might have
committed the crime is his admission.

The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. C. Shukla, pointed out the difference between
admissions and confessions as, Only voluntary and direct acknowledgement of guilt is a
confession, but, if it falls short of actual admission of guilt, it may be used as evidence against
the person who made it or his authorized agent, as an admission under section 21.

45 Confessions and its various dimensions, http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7860/11/11_chapter

%204.pdf, last visited, 17th March, 2016 (18:49(IST))

46 Ram Singh v. State and another, AIR 1959 All. 518.

47 Shraddha, Confession, Legal Service India, (July 11, 2013),
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html, (last seen at
18th March, 2016 (10:12 (IST))
Now, the basic differences between an admission and confession are as follows:

A confession is a statement made by an accused which can be used against him in a

criminal proceeding which he allegedly committed and that which can be used against
him to establish the offence. An admission on the other hand is a statement made by a
party to the proceeding or by a third party who has interest in the subject matter of the
proceedings (as per provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), and he admits a fact in
issue or relevant fact. Such an admission is usually seen in civil cases.
A confession is always a self harming statement. That is, it always goes against the
person making it. An admission on the other hand need not be a self harming statement.
A confession untainted by any legal disqualification may be accepted as conclusive in
itself of the matters confessed as conclusive in itself of the matters confessed as held in
Emperor v. Narayan,48 but an admission is no conclusive proof of the matters admitted
though it may operate as an estoppel. 49
Where there is a group of accused, the confession of one of them can be used against the
all the others provided the requirements under Section 3050 have been met. However in
the case of an admission, an admission made by one of the accused cannot be used
against the others.
An admission need not be voluntary. But for an admission to become a confession it
should be voluntary and not coerced or obtained under undue influence.
An admission is valid and is admissible even if it is made by an agent or even a stranger
on behalf of a party but for a confession to be relevant, it must be made by the accused
person himself. This was held in the American case of State v. Guie51.

4.1 CONCLUSION

The researcher firmly concludes that, there is a narrow line of difference between admissions and
confessions. All confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions. Focus has

48Emperor v. Narayan, (1907)32 Bom iii(FS).

49 Supra note 39
50 Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
51 State v. Guie, 56 Mont 485
been laid on the statements that amount to admissions and those statements that amount to
confessions. Admission is the broader term and an admission is a confession only when the
admission is made by a person admitting his own guilt or any act which is an essential part of
commission of guilt. It can be concluded that that statement is the genus, admission is the species
and confession is the subspecies.