1) Introduction

Confessions and admissions under the Evidence Act are important components of the judicial system, especially in criminal and civil proceedings. While relevant comments are a part of both confessions and admissions under the Evidence Act, they differ in their consequences and qualities.

Admissions cover remarks made in civil actions and have a wider purview. They can be made anywhere, including in front of authorities or while under police custody, and they can be made in favor of or against the party making them. Admissions made by the people concerned or by third parties may or may not constitute conclusive evidence.

Conversely, admissions made in criminal proceedings are particularly referred to as confessions. They require admitting guilt or a significant admission of facts that support guilt. Confessions are binding on co-accused parties and are invariably against the interests of the confessing party. These have a greater evidentiary value and are typically regarded as adequate evidence of the accused's guilt.

2) Confession and Admission

Confession - The Indian Evidence Act contains no definition or expression of the term "confession", but Section 17 of the Act does explain it while defining admission as, whether oral or in documented form, that is presented for consideration of any conclusion to the relevant facts or the fact in question is prohibited.

Thus, the confession is made by a person charged with any criminal offenses and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in issue or as to relevant facts. A confession can broadly be divided into two types

Confessions can be judicial or extrajudicial.

The ones made during the time of judicial proceedings are also called judicial admissions. The court admissible these under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act [1] and have a higher probative value than any other fact.

Admission - As per Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872:

An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which has enough probative value to suggest or conclude any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. [1]

Although there is no set format for admissions, they might be formal or informal. The term formal admission refers to an admission made during a legal action; on the other hand, informal admission refers to an admission made during regular daily activities or the course of one's normal life. According to Section 58 [2] of the same legislation, formal admissions or judicial admissions are fully admissible in court and have a far higher probative value than any other kind of fact. In most cases, they are rebuttable, meaning that more evidence is not needed to refute facts that have been accepted into court unless the judge specifically requests it.

Admissions are formal and informal where the prior one is made during a judicial proceeding and the later one can be made at any place outside the court.

3) Cases related to confession and admission

CBI v/s V .C. Shukla The Supreme Court lifted the notion of admission and confession, explaining the distinction between the two as follows: confession is the accused's voluntary and unethical acknowledgment of guilt, and it can be used as negative evidence against him. However, confessions made by the individual admitting the fact may not be taken into account under Section 4's preview, which is conclusive evidence of facts admitted; rather, the confessed thing or facts may only be taken into account as substantive or probative evidence of admission. [3]

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab In this case, the Supreme Court established some guidelines by ruling that in cases involving extrajudicial confessions, the court must determine the credibility of the confessional party and evaluate all of the witness's statements to determine whether or not the witness is reliable. If the witness is not reliable, the court cannot use the witness's statements to infer the accused's guilt. [4]

Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu [5]- Through this case, the Supreme Court established a few rules in the form of principles that the court must consider before admitting an accused person's confession. The principles the court cited are as follows:

a) Extrajudicial confessions are typically a very flimsy type of evidence on their own, and the court has to thoroughly review these declarations.

b) Extrajudicial confessions have to be made voluntarily and honestly by the subject.

c) When an extrajudicial confession is backed up by further such evidence, its evidential value rises immediately.

d) The confessor's confession must establish his guilt, just as any other fact in dispute is established in court.[6]

Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam - The Supreme Court of India clarified the ramifications of admission in this case, holding that admissions are typically true and devoid of any ambiguity and that they should be regarded as the best evidence for proving any relevant fact or fact in dispute by the admission of specific facts. Conversely, the unofficial admissions made during routine activities serve only to clarify the facts through the admissions of both parties, whether they are made orally or in writing. [7]

4) Difference between Confession and Admission

Confession is typically related to criminal procedures, and there isn't a provision that specifically defines it. Whereas, Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act [8] deals directly with the meaning of admission and how it relates to civil proceedings in general.

Confession is something that the person facing criminal charges makes, and it is possible to draw conclusions or imply that he is guilty of a crime from such remarks. Whereas admission is something where someone readily admits the existence of any relevant information.

Confessions always go against the confessor whereas Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, [9] admissions may be used concerning the individual who has confessed any facts or statements.

Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, [10] confessions made jointly by many parties for the same offense may be used against other defendants who are also accused of the same crime. Whereas admission cannot be utilized as evidence against the individual admitting the facts through remarks since they lack sufficient probative value. Thus, the admissions made by the several personalities involved in the same lawsuit are not admissible as proof against other individuals.

5) Conclusion

Both confession and admission are a very integral part of criminal law as they can fasten the process of identifying crime and solving it plus, they give individuals an opportunity to confess to their crimes and help the bureaucrats and the court to come to a concrete conclusion. With well-defined Acts, this process is codified and helps the court immensely.

6) Citations

1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872(s.17).

2) Indian Evidence Act, 1872(s.58).

3) CBI v/s V.C. Shukla AIR 1998.

4) Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1996, SC 607.

5) Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2012 SC 2435.

6) C onfession under the Indian Evidence Act, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/ (last visited on December 29, 2023).

7) Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam AIR 1974, SCC 242.

8) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s.17.

9) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s.21.

10) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s30.