Evidence Notes with cases.

30+133+114 (illustration B) (confession by joint co-accused in the same proceedi

ng + accomplice as competent witness + exception: unless such accomplice corrobo
rated with material contribution).
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
17 - admission is any statement
oral or documentary or electronic record
which suggest inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact
made by any persons
under circumstances mentioned from section 18-20.
18 (CAPACITY OF ADMISSIONS) - statements made by
1. party to proceeding
2. agent authorised (expressly or impliedly)
3. suitor in representative character (suing or sued), while holding such charac
ter
4. parties interested in a subject-matter of suit (proprietary or pecuniary)
5. parties from whom interest is derived in the subject matter of the suit
are admissions
19 - ??
20 - statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit
has expressly referred for information
to a matter in dispute
are admissions
21 - no person making an admission can PROVE such admission, made by or on behal
f of such person unless:
a. had the person proving it were dead, it would be relevant as between third pe
rsons under Section 32.
b. considering existence of state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, is acco
mpanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
c. it is relevant otherwise as an admission (eg. previous suit)
22 - oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant if under secondary
evidence (section 65)
23 - in civil cases, if evidence is given under express condition to not adduce
it in court, such statements are not admissible.

CONFESSION
24 - inducement, threat, promise + by a person of authority + providing benefits
or temporal removal of evils + reference to proceeding = not admissible
25 - confession to police officer = not admissible
26 - confession in police custody without magistrate in immediate presence = not
admissible
(exception) 27 - discovery of property or facts
by information provided by accused
to the police
is admissible to that extent.

28 - if inducement, threat, promise remove = confession admissible.

29 - confession made under
promise of secrecy,
while drunk,
deception practised,
answer to question he need not have answered
= confession admissible

32 - DYING DECLARATION (cases)

R v. Jenkins
Woman made declaration,
added words at present
court held she had hope of recovery.
Waugh v. R
person gave half confession and became unconscious
later died
court held that half confession cannot be used to prosecute
Kusa v. State of Orissa
doctor asked patient for addition to confession
patient collapsed and died.
court held confession is admissible.
Macchi v. State of Bihar
statement to police while injured
later died
statement to police was dying declaration
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, privy council
man borrowed 3000 rupees with 18% interest
later creditor called debtor to repay debt by letter.
debtor showed his wife of the letter
debtor was later found dead.
R v. Abdullah
the question was whether the signs made by the deceased
could be admitted as a dying declaration.
It was decided that the signs made by the deceased can be taken into considerati
on
ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONS PUT TO HER.

EXPERT OPINION
45 - opinion of expert are relevant facts based on five points (Foreign,Science,
Art,Handwriting,Footprint)
46 - facts not otherwise relevant are relevant, if they affirm or deny the opini
on of an expert held as relevant
47 - third person opinion on handwriting a. seen writing,

b. sent letters addressed to him and received letters purported to be written by

him,
c. letters received in the ordinary course of business
CHARACTER, WHEN RELEVANT
civil cases 52 - character of a person, irrelevant,
when determining probability or improbability of conduct imputed by him,
except where such character appears from facts otherwise relevant
55 - character of a person, relevant,
when determining amount of damages which he ought to receive.
(eg. maintenance to wife earning more)
criminal cases 53 - good character of accused, relevant,
except (Section 53A):
evidence of character (or previous sexual experience) irrelevant under
a. outrage of modesty and rape under sections of IPC
b. attempt to commit any offence where consent is required
54 - bad character of accused, irrelevant,
except:
a. if evidence of good character has been given by opposite party
b. if the bad character is itself a fact in issue
c. if the accused has been a convict previously.
character includes both reputation and disposition (inherent qualities)

(modes of proof)
oral evidence
59 - all evidence may be proved orally,
except contents of documents and electronic records.
60 - all oral evidence must be direct
a. if it refers to a fact which could be seen or heard or perceived by any other
senses, must be given by person who saw or heard or perceived it.
b. if it refers to opinion of experts, must be given by experts who holds an opi
nion in such grounds.
Further, if oral evidence relates to any other material other than documentary o
r electronic records, such material must be produced.
Furthermore, if there is compilation and evidence is given based on such treatis
e largely for sale,
provided such author is dead, not found, incapable, court deems unworthy of time
and money,
such evidence is admissible.
documentary evidence
61 - such evidence must be either primary or secondary
62 - primary evidence means original document produced for the inspection of the
Court
a. for executed document in several parts or counterparts, each part or counterp
art, executed by one or some or the persons.

b. printing, lithography or photography (through uniform process) each copy is p

rimary evidence, BUT
when it is copied from a common original, each copy is not primary evidence.
63 - secondary evidence means and includes:
a. certified copies given under Section 76.
b. copies made from the common original by mechanical process and copies compare
d to such copies
c. copies made from and compared with the original
d. counterparts against parties who did not execute them
e. oral accounts of the contents of a document, who has himself seen it.
64 - all documents must be proved by primary evidence, unless mentioned under Se
ction 65.
65 - secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of
a document:
(a) document is in power/possession of document:
1. opposite party
2. of person out of reach for process of court
3. of person not subject to process of court
4. of person legally bound to produce, but such person does not produce
it even after notice provided.
b. proved to be admitted in writing by opposite party or representative in inter
est.
(c) when the original has been destroyed, lost, any other reason cannot be produ
ced (other than arising from his own default or neglect)
(d) original document is not easily movable
e/ original is public document
f/ originals certified copy is permitted.
g> when original consists of numerous accounts which cannot be conveniently exam
ined in court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole coll
ection.
written admission - b.
any secondary evidence admissible - (a), (c), (d)
certified copy - e/, f/
any person who has examined them and who is skilled in the examination of such d
ocuments - g>

BURDEN OF PROOF
101 - whoever desires any court to give judgement
as to any legal right or liability dependent on
the existence of facts which he asserts,
must prove the existence of facts so asserted.
burden of proof lies with the judgement-debtor.
102 - burden of proof lies with the person
who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
(meaning - the persons who suffers harm, must prove that harm was suffered in th
e first place, and hence burden of proof lies with him)
103 - burden of proof as to any particular fact,
lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence,
UNLESS

it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particula
r person.
(eg. plea of alibi)
104 - burden of proving fact
necessary to be proved by person
to make evidence of any other fact admissible
lies upon such person.
105 - burden of proving exceptions is on the person so claiming.
(eg. plea of self-defence)
(eg. A is accused of murder and he states he was of unsound mind at the time of
murder,
burden of proof is on A).
106 - burden of proof is upon such person
who specifically has knowledge of facts.
(eg. A person is charged of criminal intent,
burden of proof is upon him to show that he had an intent
other than that which he is accused of)
107 - when question is whether man is alive or dead
and a person
shows that he is alive
within 30 years
burden of proof is upon person who affirms it.
108 - when question is whether man is alive or dead
and a person (who would have naturally heard of him had he been alive)
shows that he has not been heard of
for 7 years
burden of proof is upon person who affirms it.

SECTION 1 (Scope)
Evidence Act does not apply to:
1. Affidavits
2. Judicial proceedings before arbitrators
3. Court-martial under Army, Navy or Air-force Act.

SECTION 3 (Court)
Court means 1. all Judges and Magistrates,
2. all persons legally authorised to take evidence (except arbitrators).
This means all tribunals, district courts, high courts and supreme court (of ori
ginal jurisdiction)
are courts within the meaning of section 3.
Additionally, legally authorised to take evidence means 1. a coroner, although not a court, can take evidence.

2. generally, courts acting in appellate jurisdiction CANNOT take evidence

(example, a district magistrate, hearing an appeal, is not legally authorised to
take evidence
because right to receive evidence is not an incident of an appellate court).

SECTION 3 (Fact)
Fact means and includes:
1. any thing (a house),
state of things (a house with 2 persons living inside it)
or relation of things (a house near the river stream)
CAPABLE OF BEING PERCEIVED BY THE SENSES (external fact)
2. any mental condition of which ANY PERSON IS CONSCIOUS (internal fact - some m
ental condition which the persons knows about).
thus, facts fall into two categories:
1. which CAN be perceived by the senses (external fact)
2. which CANNOT be perceived by the senses (internal fact)
external facts:
1. that there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place
, is a fact.
2. that a man heard or saw something, is a fact
3. that a man said certain words, is a fact.
internal fact:
1. that a man holds a certain opinion, intention, acts in good faith or fraudule
ntly, is a fact.
2. that a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
FUTURE EVENTS OR FACTS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 3.
A fact is either:
1. admissible in law (fact in issue)
2. relevant in fact

SECTION 3 (Facts in Issue)

Any fact from which,
either by itself or in connection with other facts,
the existence, non-existence, nature, extent
of any right, liability or disability
is asserted or denied
in any suit or proceeding.
If a court records an issue of fact (a loophole in the facts presented - eg. Whe
ther A was present at the time of murder)
such loopholes answer as being true or false (asserted or denied - basically disp
uted)
becomes the FACT IN ISSUE.
If Prakash is brought before court on the accusation of Debayans murder, the fact
in issue may be:
1. whether Prakash actually caused Debayans death (will fix the liability as requ
ired by section 300 IPC).
2. whether Prakash intended to cause Debayans death (will fix the liability as re
quired by section 300 IPC).
3. whether Prakash received grave and sudden provocation from Debayan to cause h

is death (will reduce the liability as provided in section 300 IPC).

4. whether Prakash was of unsound mind at the time of committing the murder (wil
l absolve from any liability).
Fact in issue arises when such is
affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Without any dispute, there can be no fact in issue.
Fact in issue is determined by substantive laws.
All ingredients of a provision of law may become fact in issue.

SECTION 3 (Relevant Facts)

One fact is said to be relevant to another
when the one is connected with the other
in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the rel
evancy of facts (Sections 5-55).
Two things can be understood from the above:
1. all relevant facts are not admissible.
2. relevant facts must be referred to in the Act.
relevant fact includes dying declaration, motive, effect, conduct, etc.
In Woolf v. Woolf,
a man and another woman,
who were not married to each other,
occupied the same building.
this clearly proved the allegation
that they had committed adultery
and were in an adulterous relationship.

SECTION 3 (Evidence)
*Incomplete*

SECTION 3 (Proved/Disproved/Not proved)

Fact in issue/relevant fact is said to be proved when,
1. after consideration the court believes it to exist
2. the court considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under that c
ircumstance will also believe it to exist.
Disproved is opposite of proved.
Not proved means the fact in issue/relevant fact is neither proved nor disproved
.
SECTION 4 (Presumption)
May presume (rebuttable presumptions of fact)
Whenever it is provided by this Act
that the Court MAY presume a fact,
it may:
1. regard such fact as proved (unless and until it is disproved)
2. call for proof of it.
such presumption of fact may be utilised
to prove a doubtful fact

which may be inferred from an already proven fact.

such presumption of fact is derived from the facts of each case, and not from la
w.
Section 86, 87, 88, 90, 114.
Shall presume (rebuttable presumptions of law)
Whenever it is directed by this Act
that the Court SHALL presume a fact,
it shall regard such fact as proved (unless and until it is disproved).
every man is known to be innocent, until proven guilty;
this is a positive presumption of law.
such presumption of law is derived from the law.
Section 79-81, 83, 85, 89 and 105.
Conclusive proof (irrebuttable presumptions of law - binding proof, no evidence
allowed)
When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another,
the Court shall, on proof of the one fact,
regard the other as proved,
and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
e.g. a document, once admitted as valid in a court of law,
cannot be argued over its validity in a later stage.
Section 41, 112, 113.

SECTION 5 (ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE)

Evidence may be given
in any suit or proceeding
of the existence/non-existence of every:
1. fact in issue
2. relevant fact
and nothing other than the above mentioned.
The principle behind this section is
if evidence is adduced for irrelevant facts,
itll simply waste the time of the court.
Section 5 excludes everything not covered in the purview of the Act.
However, such exclusion is an exception.
Admissibility of evidence is a question of law.
When a judge is in doubt as to admissibility of a particular piece of evidence,
he should declare in favour of admissibility,
rather than shutting it out.
(R v. Parbhudas;
Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari;
Rupendera Deb v. Ashrumati Debi).
If evidence is relevant,
it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was gather
ed.
(Public Prosecutor v. Kalangana Rao).
In criminal cases, the court should lean always in favour of the accused
exclude all evidences which are remote to the relevancy.
(Benoyendera Chandra Pandey v. Emperor).
It is found that all legally relevant facts are admissible,
but all logically relevant facts are not admissible.
What is legally receivable (under the Act) is admissible, whether it is logical

or not.
_______________________________________________________________________
RELEVANT FACTS ADMISSIBLE IN LAW (under Section 5) STARTS FROM HERE >
SECTION 6 (Res Gestae - Relevancy of fact forming PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION)
Facts NOT in issue,
which are so connected with a fact in issue
as to form part of the same transaction,
are relevant facts,
whether they occurred at the same time and place
or at different times and places.
Illustrations:
A is accused of the murder of by beating him.
Whatever was said or done by A or
or the by-standers at the beating,
or so shortly before or after it
as to form part of the transaction,
is a relevant fact.
Whether certain goods ordered from were delivered to A.
The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively.
Each delivery is a relevant fact.
________
For a fact to be relevant to a fact in issue,
it must be so closely associated in time, place and circumstances
that it can be said to form a part of the same transaction.
Res Gestae means things done (or said) forming part of the same transaction.
This doctrine is an exception to the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
If a hearsay evidence is so closely associated to a fact in issue,
so as to form part of the same transaction,
it cannot be dismissed by a court of law.
It applies to both criminal and civil cases.
In R v. Foster (criminal),
a person saw a vehicle rashly speeding away from a certain place.
upon going towards such certain place,
the person saw a run-over victim.
upon talking to the victim he found out that the car had run him over.
although the person did not see the accident,
his hearsay evidence was admitted,
and the accused was held liable for driving over the victim.
In OHara v. Central Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd. (civil),
a passenger was injured by the sudden swerve of the bus in which she was travell
ing.
the driver stated that he was forced to swerve because of a man who was hurriedl
y crossing the path.
hearsay evidence of another man on the pavement at the scene of the accident,
was held admissible in the corroboration of the drivers statements.
However, another hearsay evidence, which was 12 minutes later,
was not admitted as it DID NOT form part of the res gestae.
In Om Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
where the eye witness stated that accused killed the deceased to another witness,
who reached the scene immediately after the incident,

because they were working in the near vicinity of the place of occurrence,
the hearsay evidence of the other witness was found to be relevant
and forming part of the res gestae.
________
Res Gestae also includes statements of bystanders.
A bystander is a person who is present at the time and place of the event,
and is involved voluntarily or forced into involvement,
forming part of the res gestae.
A person who arrives at the scene of occurrence after the event, is not a bystan
der.
The statement of the person is relevant only who has seen the actual occurrence.
ADMISSIBILITY IS DEPENDENT ON CONTINUITY.
________
Where the transaction consists of different acts (i.e. tells a story),
in order that the chain of such acts may constitute same transaction,
they must be connected together by:
1. proximity of time
2. proximate of place
3. continuity of action
4. community of purpose or design.
Where the transaction consists of declarations accompanying an act,
they are subject to the following:
1. It must not be a mere narrative of past events.
2. It must not be made at such an interval so as to allow fabrication
3. It must be contemporaneous with the fact in issue.

SECTION 7 (Occasion, Cause, Effect, State of Things, Opportunity)

Facts which constitute:
1. the occasion
2. cause
3. their effect
4. opportunity for their happening
5. state of things under which they happened.
immediate or otherwise,
of relevant facts, or facts in issue,
are relevant.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his p
ossession,
and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, ar
e relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B.
Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murde
r was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B.
The state of B s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B,
known to A,
which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant fac
ts.
Facts because of which facts in issue take birth,

or facts which take birth because of facts is issue

are also considered relevant fact.
Evidence can be given for the set of circumstances
under which the principle facts occurred.
This section includes the following types of facts 1. Occasion means the circumstances in which an event occurred.
Evidence of such circumstance is eligible to given.
In R vs Richardson,
where a person was charged with the rape and murder of a girl,
the fact that the girl was alone in her cottage at the time of her murder is rel
evant
because it provided the occasion in which the crime happened.
2. Facts that form the cause of facts in issue are relevant.
For example, A is charged of criminal misappropriation of funds from a bank.
The fact that A was hugely in debt at the time of committing the crime is a rele
vant fact
because it indicates a possible cause of the commission of the crime.
In R v. Richardson,
the fact that the deceased girl was carrying the baby of the accused,
was held to be relevant.
3. Every act causes some effect that leads to some other happening.
These effects not only record the happening of the main act
but also throws light upon the nature of the act.
For example, where a person is poisoned,
the symptoms produced are effects of the fact in issue and so are relevant.
In R v. Richardson,
where the young girl was killed in her cottage,
the print of the footsteps showed that they were those
of persons who must have worn shoes,
the soles of which have been newly mended.
This fact was considered relevant,
as it helped in tracing the culprit.
4. Circumstances which provide an opportunity for the happening of a fact in iss
ue are relevant.
For example, a break from the daily routine of a person
may be the opportunity that is used by the person to commit the crime.
In R vs Richardson,
the fact that Richardson left his fellow workers at about the time of murder
under the pretence of going to a smith s shop is relevant
because it provided an opportunity for the fact in issue,
namely her rape and murder, to happen.
5. Facts which constitute the state of things under which
or in the background of which
the principle facts happened are relevant.
In Rattan vs Reginum,
a person shot his wife
and his plea was that it was an accident.
The fact that he was unhappy with his wife
and was having an affair with another woman,
was held to be a relevant fact.

SECTION 8 (Motive, Preparation, Previous or Subsequent Conduct)

Any fact is relevant

which shows or constitutes

a motive or preparation
for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party,
or of any agent to any party,
to any suit or proceeding,
in reference to such suit or proceeding,
or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto,
and the conduct of any person an offence against whom
is the subject of any proceeding,
is relevant,
if such conduct influences
or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact,
and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1 - The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements,
unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements;
but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any othe
r section of this Act.
Explanation 2 - When the conduct of any person is relevant,
any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing,
which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew tha
t A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening t
o make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bo
nd. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required
money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of
B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that
, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to w
hich the provisions of the alleged will relate, that he consulted vakils in refe
rence to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepare
d of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before or at the time of, or
after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the fa
cts of the case an appearance favorable to himself, or that he destroyed or conc
ealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who
might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respectin
g it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C s
aid in A s presence- "the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B," a
nd that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C to
lend him money, and that D said to C in A s presence and hearing- "I advise you
not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees," and that A went away without maki
ng any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded afte
r receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal, a
nd the contents of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged
crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of proper
ty acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might hav
e been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the a

lleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under
which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact t
hat, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not rele
vant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declara
tion under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 15
7.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged
robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under w
hich, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact tha
t he said he had been robbed without making any complaint, is not relevant, as c
onduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration unde
r section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
Three principle facts - Motive, Preparation, and Conduct.
1. Motive is the power that impels one to do an act.
a desire, fear, reason etc.
It is a kind of inducement for doing the act.
Motive is productive of physical or mechanical motion.
Motive by itself is not a crime,
but is helpful in establishing guilt.
Evidence of motive helps the court connect the accused with the deed and is so v
ery relevant.
MOTIVE IS IMPORTANT IN CASES BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
MOTIVE IS UNIMPORTANT WHEN THERE IS CLEAR, COGENT AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE CONNECTI
NG THE ACCUSED TO THE CRIME.
For example, on the murder of an old widow,
the fact that the accused was to inherit her wealth
was held as relevant as it showed that the accused had the motive to kill her.
In another case, a woman who a good swimmer had drowned
and the fact that the accused, her husband, was having an affair with another wo
man
was held relevant as it explained the motive behind the murder.
In R v. Richardson,
the accused killed the deceased
because the girl was carrying the baby of the accused,
which the accused did not want to be disclosed in the public
as it would hurt his reputation.
This signified his motive to commit the murder.
2. The acts of preparation for a crime are relevant.
Preparation by itself is not a crime
(except in certain offences such as waging a war against Govt. of India)
but the facts that show the preparation,
tie the preparer to the actual crime and so are relevant.
In R v. Palmer,
act of purchasing a poison shows the preparation of the murder
by administering poison to the creditor friend,
as the accused was took some loans from such friend.
3. The state of mind of a person is often reflected in his conduct
and so conduct of a person is a relevant fact.
This section makes the conduct of any party to a civil suite or their agents rel
evant.
Previous conduct relates to previous fights,
attempt to murder,
experience in murder, etc.
Subsequent conduct relates to being missing from house after committing murder,

suspicious act of hiding himself or certain goods used for the offence, etc.
In a criminal case, the conduct of the accused before, while, or after doing the
act is deemed relevant.
However, two conditions must be fulfilled for the conduct to be relevant 1. The conduct must be in reference to the facts in issue or the facts related t
o them.
2. The conduct is such, it influences or is influenced by the facts in issue or
relevant facts.
1. When evidence of conduct itself is fact in issue
In Amina v. Hasan Hoya
the SC held that his conduct would be relevant to support or rebut his case.
In this case the wife was pregnant at the time of her marriage
and the husband alleged that she had concealed it from him.
The conduct of a man is admissible only against him.
The conduct of one accused is not relevant against a co accused.
When the conduct of a person is in question,
the statements, oral or written made to him or in his presence or hearing
which affect such conduct are relevant.
Example Illustrations (f), (g), (h).
2. influences or is influenced
In R v Abdullah,
the question was whether the signs made by the deceased
could be admitted as the conduct or a dying declaration.
It was decided that the signs made by the deceased can be taken into considerati
on
ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONS PUT TO HER.
THE SIGNS ALONE cannot be admitted by way of conduct under sections 8 and 9 of t
he Act,
but as verbal statements.
Thus, conduct of the injured person is not always relevant.
Statements is not admissible for conduct,
because false or manipulated statements may be easily given.
however it may be admitted as evidence if:
1. a statement of one person, made another person do some conduct (e.g. the polic
e is searching for the murderer of A. after hearing this, B ran away).
2. a statement accompanying or explaining conduct (e.g. i will kill you before mur
dering someone)
3. when statement is enumerated under any provision in this Act.

SECTION 9 (Facts necessary to Explain/Introduce Relevant Facts)

Facts necessary to:
1. explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
2. support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact
3. establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant
4. fix the time and place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened
5. show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted
are relevant
in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Section 7 and 8 provide generally for the admission of facts, causative of a fac
t, relevant or in issue.
The present section provides for facts explanatory of any such fact.

Illustrations () The question is, whether a given document is the Will of A,

The state of As property and of his family at the date of the alleged Will may be
relevant facts.
(b) A sues for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A;
affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true.
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was publish
ed
may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.
The particulars of a dispute between A and about a matter unconnected with the a
lleged libel are irrelevant,
though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the rela
tions between A and .
() A is accused of a crime.
The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his hous
e, is relevant, under section 8,
as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.
The fact that, at the time when he left home,
he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant,
as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant,
except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and
urgent.
(d) A sues for inducing to break a contract of service made by him with A.
C., on leaving As service, says to AI am leaving you because has made me a better o
ffer.
This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of Cs conduct,
which is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B,
who is seen to give it to As wife.
says, as he delivers itA says you are to hide this.
Bs statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transactio
n.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. Th
e cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
Introductory facts:
Facts which are introductory of a relevant fact,
are of great importance in understanding real nature of transaction and being re
levant.
Thus, evidence is allowed of facts which are necessary to introduce fact in issu
e or relevant fact.
In a suit of libel evidence of persons relation at the time of alleged libel
may be necessary to introduce the circumstances that led to libel.
Support inference:
In Rahan Lalu v. Emperor
A man killed his wife.
their 5 year old child cried for help
due to such crying, witnesses gathered,
although childs statement is not admissible,
the reason why witnesses went (due to such crying),
was admissible and is relevant.

A, after murder was seen running away from the village.

Running away supports the inference that the murder might have been caused by hi
m.
It is relevant.
Rebut inference:
Plea of alibi can rebut an inference of murder.
Burden of proof shifts to the accused.
Identification:
R v. Abdullah
Also,
In a robbery with murder case
the house lady was called to identify the article of the deceased and other belo
ngings.
Identification of the deceased can be made with the help of this clothes and sho
es.
Identification of jewellery of victim by neighbour who attended a birth day is a
dmissible.
Relation of parties:
Rattan v. Reginum

SECTION 14 (State of Mind, State of Body, Bodily Feeling)

Facts showing the existence of:
1. any state of mind,
such as knowledge, intention, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good
-will (KIG-N-RIG)
towards any particular person,
2. or showing 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 relevant.
Explanation 1 - A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of
mind
must show that the state of mind exists,
not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
For example A is tried for a crime.
The fact that, he said something indicating an intention to commit that particul
ar crime is relevant.
But the fact that, he said something indicating a general disposition to commit
crimes of that
Explanation
2 -class,
But where,
is irrelevant.
upon the trial of a person accused of an offence,
the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the mean
ing of this section,
the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
Illustrations Knowledge:
1. A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article.
The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen artic
les is relevant,
as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in
possession to be stolen.
2. A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin
which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew each and all of the articles of

which he was in possession to be stolen.

The fact that, at the time of delivery A was possessed of a number of other piec
es of counterfeit coin is relevant.
The fact that, A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person
as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.
Intention:
1. A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show As i
ntent, the fact of As having previously shot at B may be proved.
2. A is charged with sending heartening letters to B. Threatening letters previo
usly sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters.
3. A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact t
hat, A on other occasions shot a B is relevant as showing his intention to shoot
B.
The fact that, A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder th
em, is irrelevant.
knowledge,
Good-Faith:
1. 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.
2. The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe,
the notice was given fraudulently by C
who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to
it,
is relevant as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice
did not disprove As good faith.
Negligence,
1. A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire
not reasonably fit for use,
whereby A was injured.
Statements made by A as to the state of his health
at or near the time in question, are relevant facts.
2. A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire
not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured.
The fact that, Bs attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that pa
rticular carriage, is relevant.
The fact that, B was habitually negligent about the carriage which he let to hir
e is relevant.
Rashness 1. A sues B for damage done by a dog of Bs 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.
Ill-will or Good-will existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,
1. The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other
shortly before or after the alleged cruelty, are relevant facts.
2. The question is, whether As death was caused by poison.
Statement made by A during his illness as to his symptoms, are relevant facts.
In AV Joseph v. Emperor,
Debtor fled abroad,

creditor could not communicate

shows state of mind of debtor.
In Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird,
Court held,
statements made by A as to the state of his health
at or near the time in question are relevant facts.
Res Inter Alios tt:
This maxim implies that inferences are not to be drawn from one transaction to a
nother
which is not specifically connected with it,
merely because the two resemble each other as a matter of fact.
They must be linked together by the chain of cause and effect
in some reasonable manner before an inference may be drawn.
A fact in issue cannot be proved
by showing that facts similar to it, but not part of the same transaction, have
occurred at other times.
Thus, when the question is whether a person has committed a crime,
the fact that he had committed a similar crime some time ago is irrelevant.
In R. v. Shellaker,
it was held that
to prove the occurrence of sexual intercourse on a given occasion,
prior and subsequent acts between the same parties are admissible.
As
In
in
is
of
at

to state of body and bodily feeling,

Mohan v. Mohan,
a divorce case, a letter written by the wife to her paramour
a good evidence under this section
her feelings towards the paramour
the time the letter was written.

HENCE:
1. Mens rea is relevant for the Court to infer the intention of accused in commi
tting the alleged offense.
2. A previous judgement convicting the accused for the same offense is relevant
and admissible to prove his state of mind.
3. Facts intended to be proved to show the state of mind of the accused must be
connected with the particular matter in question. Facts showing generality canno
t be admissible.
4. Actus rea deals with the state of the body of the accused or the deceased.
5. When an intoxicated person kills another by repeated stab wounds, requisite k
nowledge and intention can be presumed
SECTION 15 (Accidental or Intentional)
Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional are relevant
.
For example A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for
which it is insured.
The fact that, A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured,
in 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 off
ice, are relevant,
as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

Similarly, A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B.

It is As 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 his 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.
In R v. Harrison-Owen, (Sleep-walk, Past occurrence)
the appellant was found to in a dwelling house about 1am.
appellant had sleep-walks and past history of the same.
the fact that he had no intention
and that such act from start to finish
was purely accidental
was relevant.
In Males v. Kerrs, (Barber-Shave-Ringworm)
Damages were claimed from a barber,
for negligence in showing the plaintiff with a dirty razor,
and thereby infecting him with a ringworm.
Evidence of two other witnesses who had been saved at the defendants shop,
and similarly infected by ringworm
was held to be relevant.

SECTION 16 (course of business)

When there is a question whether a particular act was done,
the existence of any course of business,
according to which it naturally would have been done,
is a relevant fact.
In Warren v. Warren,
When it is proved that a letter has been posted
and has not been returned to the sender,
the presumption is that it must have been delivered.

General Concept of Admission In general, Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact.

Importance is given to those admissions
that goes against the interests of the person making the admission.
For example, when A says to B that he stole money from C,
A makes an admission of the fact that A stole money from C
This fact is detrimental to the interests of A.
The concept behind this is that nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact
that goes against their interest unless it is indeed true.
Unless A indeed stole money from C,
it is not normal for A to say that he stole money from C.
Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a person.
On the other hand, anybody can make assertions in favour of themselves.

They can be true or false.

For example, A can keep on saying that a certain house belongs to himself,
but that does not mean it is necessarily true.
Therefore, such assertions do not have much evidentiary value.
Section 17
An admission is a statement,
oral or documentary, or contained in electronic form,
which suggests any inference
as to any fact in issue or relevant fact,
and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances
hereinafter mentioned.
These circumstances are mentioned in Section 18 to 20 as follows Section 18 Admission by party to proceeding or his agent;
by suitor in representative character;
by party interested in subject-matter;
by person from whom interest derived - Statements made by a party to the proceed
ing, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circums
tances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to made them, ar
e admissions.
By suitor in representative character - Statements made by parties to suits suin
g or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were ma
de while the party making them held that character.
Statements made by (1) by party interested in subject matter; persons who have any proprietary or p
ecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding and who make the state
ment in their character of persons so interested; or
(2) by person from whom interest derived; persons from whom the parties to the s
uit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admission
s, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making
the statements.
According to this section, statements made by persons
who are directly or indirectly a party to a suit
are admissions.
Thus, statements of 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.
Similarly, statements made by persons who have a pecuniary interest in the subje
ct 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 maker had such an 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.

Section 19 - Admissions by persons

whose position must be proved

as against party to suitStatements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove
as against any party to the suit, are admissions,
if 1. such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such
position or liability in a suit brought by or against them
2. they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subj
ect to such liability.
Illustration A undertakes to collect rent for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
Statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission
and is a relevant fact as against A.

Section 20 - Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit
has expressly referred for information
in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B "Go and ask C. C knows all about it.
Cs statement is an admission.
To be considered an admission, it is not necessary for a statement to give a dir
ect acknowledgment of liability.
It is sufficient even if the statement suggests an inference about the liability
.
For example, A is charged with murder of B by giving poison.
The statement by A that he purchased a bottle of poison is admission
because it suggests the inference that he might have murdered B using that poiso
n,
even though it does not clearly acknowledge the fact that A murdered B.
In Chekham Koteshwara Rao vs C Subbarao,
SC held that before the right of a party can be taken to be defeated
on the basis of an alleged admission by him,
the implication of the statement must be clear and conclusive.
There should not be any doubt or ambiguity.
Further, it held that it is necessary to read all of his statements together.
Thus, stray elements elicited in cross examination cannot be taken as admission.

It is important to note that Indian Evidence Act does not require that an admiss
ion be of statements
that are against the interests of the maker.
All that is necessary is that the statement should suggest some inference
as to a fact in issue or relevant to the issue,
even if the inference is in the interest of the maker of the statement.
Self serving prior statements are also admissions.
For example, A person can say to B that he did not steal money from C.
This is a self serving statement and is a valid admission.
But such self serving admissions are governed by the provisions of Section 21,
which says the following -

Section 21 - Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their

behalf - Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who ma
kes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on
behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except
in the following cases (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it
is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be rele
vant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it
consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant
or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body exis
ted, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it i
s relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Illustrations
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged.
A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by
B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that deed is fo
rged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine,
nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) 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 boo
k 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 s
hip was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, b
ecause they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under
section 32, clause (2).
(c) 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 pos
t-mark of that day. The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, bec
ause,
if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2).
(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He off
ers 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.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin w
hich he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skillful per
son to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and th
at that
person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for t
he reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.
From the above illustrations it is clear that the general rule is that a person
is not allowed to prove his own admissions. Otherwise, as observed in R vs Hardy
, 1794, every man, if he were in difficulty, or in view of one, might make decla
rations to suit his own case and then lodge them in proof of his case. This pri
nciple, however, is subject to some important exceptions, which allow a person t
o prove his own statements. These are as follows Exception 1 - When the statement should have been relevant as dying declaration
or as that of a deceased person under Section 32. Section 32 deals with the stat
ement of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come before the court. Th
e statement of any such person can be proved in any case or proceeding to which
it is relevant whether it operates in favor of or against the person making the
statement. In circumstances stated in Section 32 such a statement can be proved

by the maker himself if he is still alive. In the situation described in Illustr

ation (b), in a case between the shipowner and the insurance company, the conten
ts of the log book maintained by the captain would have been relevant evidence i
f the captain were dead under Section 32. Therefore, the captain is allowed to p
rove the contents of the log book even in the case involving him and the shipown
ers.
Exception 2 - Statements as to bodily feeling or mind - It enables a person to
prove his statements about his state of mind or body if such state of mind or bo
dy is a fact in issue or is relevant fact and if the statement was made at the t
ime when such state of mind or body existed and further if the statement is acco
mpanied with his conduct that makes the falsehood of the statements improbable.
In Illustration (d), the statements of A that show that he refused to sell them
below their value, are self serving admissions. However, it is acceptable becaus
e they reflect A s state of mind and were associated with a conduct of refusing
to sell that makes their falsehood improbably.
Exception 3 - The last exception allows a person to prove his own statement when
it is otherwise relevant under any of the provisions relating to relevancy. The
re are many cases in which a statement is relevant not because it is an admissio
n but because it establishes the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact o
r a fact in issue. In all such cases a party can prove his own statements. These
cases are covered by the following sections Section 6 - When a statement is made relevant by the doctrine of res gestae i.e
. due to part of the same transaction. For example, immediately after a road acc
ident, if the victim has made a statement to the rescuer about the cause of the
accident, he can prove that statement because it is part of the same transaction
.
Section 8 - A statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person make it unde
r Section 8 if it accompanies or explains acts other than statements or if it in
fluences the conduct of a person whose conduct is relevant. For example, where A
says to B, "You have not paid my money back", and B walks away in silence, A ma
y prove his own statement because it has influenced the conduct of a person whos
e conduct is relevant.
Section 14 - When the statement explains his state of mid or body or bodily feel
ing when any such thing is relevant or is in issue, it can be proved by himself.
For example, where the question is whether a person has been guilty of cruelty
towards his wife, he may prove his statements made shortly before or after the a
lleged cruelty which explain his love and affection for and his feeling towards
his wife.

The term confession is not defined anywhere in Indian Evidence Act.

But it is thought that an Admission in case of a criminal matter is Confession.
The same was stated by STEPHEN in his digest
that a confession is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with a cri
me,
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime.
However, Privy Council, in case of Pakala Narayan Swami vs Emperor AIR 1939,
did not accept this definition.
In this case Lord ATKIN observed that

no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to a confession.

Further, a confession must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate s
ubstantially
all the facts which constitute the offence.
An offence of a gravely incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession.
For example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent pos
session of the knife or revolver
which caused death with no explanation of any other man s possession,
is not a confession even though it strongly suggests that the accused has commit
ted the murder.
The decision by Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami case
was approved by SC in the case of Palvinder Kaur vs State of Punjab, AIR 1952.
In this case, Palvinder was on trial for murder of her husband along with anothe
r,
who all the time remained absconding.
In her statement to the court,
her husband was hobbyist photographer
and used to keep handy photo developing material
which is quick poison.
On this occasion, he was ill and she brought him some medicine
and the medicine was kept near the liquid developer
and by mistake swallowed the liquid and died.
She got afraid and with the help of the absconder,
she dumped the body in the well.
The statement, thus, partially admitted guilt and partially showed innocence.
Here, the lower courts sorted out the exculpatory part
and convicted her on the inculpatory part.
However, SC rejected this approach
and held that the rule regarding confession and admission is that
they must either be accepted or rejected AS A WHOLE.

Difference between Confession and Admission

An admission is a statement that may or may not be a conclusive evidence of a fa
ct in issue or relevant fact
but to be a confession, the admission must conclusively prove the guilt of the m
aker of the admission.
For example, in the case of Veera Ibrahim vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976,
a person being prosecuted under Customs Act told the customs officer
that he did not know that the goods loaded in his truck were contraband
nor were they loaded with his permission.
SC held that the statement was not a confession
but it did amount to admission of an incriminating fact
that the truck was loaded with contraband material.
Thus, a statement which may not amount to confession
may still be relevant as admission.
Only a voluntary and direct acknowledgment of guilt is confession,
but when a confession fall short of actual admission of guilt,
it may nevertheless be used as evidence under Section 21.
Regarding admission that contains multiple sentences,
Justice Thomas, of SC stated the law in the case of Lokeman Shah vs State of WB,
AIR 2001 as follows The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by a judicial magistrate und
er Section 164 of CrPC,
is confessional or not
is not to determine it by dissecting the statement into different sentences

and then to pick out some as not inculpative.

The statement must be read as a whole
and then only the court should decide whether it contains admissions of his incu
lpatory involvement in the offence.
If the result of that test is positive then the statement is confessional otherw
ise not.

Classification of Confessions
Judicial Confession - A judicial confession is a confession
that is made in front of a magistrate or in a court.
It may be made in the course of a judicial proceeding.
Extra - Judicial Confession - An extra-judicial confession is a confession
that is made by the party elsewhere than before a magistrate or in a court.
It is admissible in evidence under Section 21
and it is proved by the witnesses who had heard the speaker s words
constituting the confession.
A confession may even consist of conversation with oneself.
For example, in case of Sahoo vs State of UP, AIR 1966,
an accused who was charged with murder of his daughter in law
with whom he was always quarreling
was seen on the day of the murder going out of the home saying words to the effe
ct,
"I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels."
The statement was held to be a valid confession
because it is not necessary for the relevance of a confession
that it should communicate to some other person.

Confessions when Not Relevant

Section 24 - Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person i
n authority Confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding
if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by
inducement, threat, or promise,
made by any person in authority
and that in the view of the court such inducement, threat, or promise
gives reasonable ground to the person
that by making the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporary nature
in reference to the proceedings against him.
The following conditions are necessary to attract the provisions of this section
1. The confession must have been made because of inducement, threat, or promise
For example, where the accused was told by the magistrate, "tell me where the th
ings are and I will be favorable to you", it was held to be inadmissible.
2. The inducement, threat, or promise, must be made by a person in authority For example, a daughter is accused of shoplifting and later on her mother is als
o accused of the same offence.

Now, if the mother is induced to confess by an authority saying that if she conf
esses to the charge, proceedings against her daughter will be dropped,
this will most like lead to an untrue confession.
3. It should hold out some material, worldly, or temporal benefit or advantage The inducement should be about some tangible benefit.
For example, a reference to spiritual benefit such as,
taking an accused to a temple to confess does not fall in this category
but a promise to reduce the sentence would fall under it.
It is necessary that all the conditions must exist cumulatively.
Further, this section merely requires that if it "appears to the court"
that the confession was improperly obtained, it becomes inadmissible

Confessions to Police - It is presumed that police holds a position of great inf

luence
over the actions of the the accused
and so there is a high probability that confessions obtained by the police
are tainted with threat, or inducement.
Further, it is important to prevent the practice of oppression or torture by the
police
to extract the confession. This principle is espoused by Sections 25 and 26, whi
ch are as follows Section 25 - Confession to police-officer not to be proved No confession made to a police-officer shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence.
This section is very broadly word.
It strictly disallows any confession made to the police officer as inadmissible
no matter what the circumstances.
In the case of Raja Ram vs State of Bihar, AIR 1964,
SC held that the term police-officer is not be be interpreted strictly
but must be given a more comprehensive and popular meaning.
However, these words are also not to be construed in so wide sense
as to include a person on whom only some powers exercised by the police are conf
erred.
The test for determining whether such a person is a police officer,
is whether the powers are such as would tend to facilitate the obtaining of conf
ession by him from a suspect.
Thus, a chowkidar, police patel, a village headman, an excise officer, are all c
onsidered to be police officer.
Section 26 - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved
against him No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-offi
cer,
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate,
shall be proved as against such person.
This section further tries to ensure that the confession is not extracted
due to the influence of the police.
Any confession made while the maker is in custody of the police is invalid
unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.
The presence of a magistrate is, by a legal fiction,
regarded as equivalent to removal of police influence
and the statement is therefore considered to be free from police influence.
Mere absence of the police officer from a room
where confession is taken does not terminate his custody of the accused.
The word custody does not just mean formal custody

but includes such state of affairs

in which the accused can be said to have come into the hands of a police officer
or can be said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction.
Section 27 provides another exception when a confession made to the police is ad
missible.
This is when a confession leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the cr
ime.
The discovery assures that the confession is true and reliable even if it was ex
torted.
In order to ensure the genuineness of recoveries,
it has become a practice to effect the recoveries in the presence of witnesses.
Constitutionality of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act was written before the Constitution of India
and Article 20(3) of the constitution says that no person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
This article seemingly made Section 27 unconstitutional.
SC considered this issue in the case of Nisa Sree vs State of Orissa AIR 1954,
and held that it is not violative of Article 20(3).
A confession may or may not lead to the discovery of an increminating fact.
If the discovered fact is non incriminatory,
there is no issue and if it is self-incriminatory,
it is admissible if the information is given by the accused without any threat.

Confessions when Relevant 1. Section 27 - Confession leading to a discovery - Explained above.

2. Section 28 - Confessions made after removal of threat - If the confession is
obtained after the impression caused by threat, inducement, or promise is remov
ed in the opinion of the court, then the confession is admissible.
3. Section 29 - Confession made under promise, deception,etc. If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely beca
use it was made (a) under a promise of secrecy or
(b) in consequences of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpo
se of obtaining it or
(c) while the accused was drunk or
(d) while answering the questions he need not have answered or
(e) when the accused was not warned that he was not bound to make such confessio
n and that evidence of it might be given against him.
The five circumstances mentioned in the section are not exhaustive, but merely i
llustrative.
The basis of this section is that
any breach of confidence or of good faith or practice of any artifice
does not invalidate a confession.
However, a confession obtained by mere trickery does not carry much weight.
For example, in one case, an accused was told that somebody saw him doing the cr
ime
and because of this the accused made a confession.
The court held the confession as inadmissible. In Rex vs Shaw,
A was accused of a murder and B, a fellow prisoner, asked him about how he did h

e do the murder.
A said, "Will you be upon your oath not to mention what I tell you?",
to which B promised on his oath that he will not tell anybody.
A then made a statement.
It was held that it was not such an inducement that would render the confession
inadmissible.