Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act: Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on Their Behalf

Introduction

Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) deals with the concept of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf. This section provides that admissions made by a person are relevant against that person, and may be proved by or on their behalf.

Essentials of an Admission Under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

To constitute an admission under Section 21, the following essentials must be satisfied:

1. The statement must be made by the person against whom it is sought to be used.

2. The statement must be an acknowledgment or recognition of some fact which is relevant to the matter in dispute.

3. The statement must be made either by the person themselves or by their agent or representative.

Types of Admissions Under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

There are three main types of admissions under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act:

1. Express admissions: These are admissions that are made in clear and unambiguous terms.

2. Implied admissions: These are admissions that are not made in express terms, but can be inferred from the person’s conduct or statements.

3. Admissions by conduct: These are admissions that are made by the person’s conduct, such as when they remain silent when they are accused of something.

Rationale Behind Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

The rationale behind Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act is that a person is more likely to make admissions that are true than false. Therefore, admissions are considered to be reliable evidence and are admissible in court.

Scope of Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. However, there are some limitations on the admissibility of admissions in criminal proceedings. For example, admissions made by an accused person while in police custody are generally not admissible in court.

Examples of Admissions Under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

Here are some examples of admissions under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act:

1. A person admits that they were driving a car that was involved in an accident. This is an express admission.

2. A person remains silent when they are accused of stealing money. This is an implied admission.

3. A person pays a sum of money to settle a claim against them. This is an admission by conduct.

Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act is an important provision that allows for the admission of statements made by persons against themselves. These statements can be very helpful in proving or disproving a matter in dispute. However, it is important to note that admissions are not always reliable and that there are some limitations on their admissibility in court.

Additional Notes Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act

• Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act is subject to certain exceptions, such as the rule against hearsay.

• Admissions can be withdrawn or explained, but the court will decide whether or not to accept the withdrawal or explanation.

• Admissions can be very persuasive evidence, but they should not be treated as conclusive proof.

Here are some case laws on Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act:

Satinder Kumar v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 72 (HP)

In this case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an assessee said an admission was mistaken, it could not be relied upon without putting the admission to him. The court also held that an admission made by a party to an inquiry proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be used against the party in a subsequent criminal proceeding.

Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Messrs. Indian Dyechem Ltd. (1969) 23 STC 739 (SC)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an admission made by a party to a departmental inquiry under the Sales Tax Act, 1954 could be used against the party in a subsequent assessment proceeding.

Emperor v. Murugesan (AIR 1933 Mad 54)

In this case, the Madras High Court held that an admission made by an accused person to a police officer could not be used against the accused person in a criminal proceeding.

State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (AIR 1953 SC 302)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an admission made by an accused person during a police investigation could be used against the accused person in a criminal proceeding, provided that the admission was made freely and voluntarily.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Narayan (AIR 1979 SC 1522)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an admission made by an accused person during a police interrogation could not be used against the accused person in a criminal proceeding, even if the admission was made freely and voluntarily. The court held that this was because the accused person was not represented by a lawyer at the time of the interrogation.

These are just a few examples of the many case laws that have been decided on Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act. These cases provide valuable guidance on the interpretation and application of this important provision.