Admissions in civil cases when relevant – Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act
Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevance of admissions in civil cases. An admission is a statement made by a party to a proceeding, which is relevant to the matters in dispute. Admissions can be made either expressly or by implication.
General Rule
The general rule under Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act is that no admission is relevant in a civil case if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
Exceptions to the General Rule – Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act
There are two exceptions to the general rule:
-
When the admission is made in the course of proceedings. Admissions made in the course of proceedings are always relevant, even if they are made upon an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given.
-
When the admission is relevant to the character of the person making it. Admissions made by a party to a proceeding are relevant to the character of that person, even if they are not relevant to the matters in dispute.
Rationale for the General Rule
The rationale for the general rule is that parties should not be able to make admissions that are prejudicial to their own interests without the knowledge and consent of the other party. This is because admissions can be easily fabricated or mistaken. Additionally, admissions may be made under duress or compulsion.
Rationale for the Exceptions
The rationale for the exceptions to the general rule is that, in certain cases, it is necessary to allow admissions to be proved, even if they are made upon an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given, or if they are not relevant to the matters in dispute. For example, if an admission is made in the course of proceedings, it would be unfair to allow a party to retract that admission simply because he did not want it to be used against him. Similarly, if an admission is relevant to the character of the person making it, it is important to allow that admission to be proved, in order to assist the court in determining the credibility of that person.
Conclusion – Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act
Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act is an important provision of law, which helps to ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable and accurate. The general rule against the admissibility of admissions made upon an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given is necessary to protect against the dangers of fabricated or mistaken evidence. However, the exceptions to the general rule allow for the admission of admissions in certain cases where it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.
Additional Notes
-
Section 23 of the Evidence Act applies to admissions made in both civil and criminal cases.
-
The party proposing to prove an admission must be able to prove that the admission was made by the party against whom it is sought to be used.
-
The admission must be relevant to the matters in dispute.
-
The admission must be made freely and voluntarily.
-
The admission must not be made under duress or compulsion.
-
The admission must not be made in the heat of the moment.
-
The admission must not be made under a mistake of fact.
-
The admission must not be made in confidence.
-
The admission must not be made upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given.
-
The admission must not be made under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
-
The admission must not be made in the course of proceedings.
-
The admission must not be relevant to the character of the person making it.
Here are some case laws on Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act:
-
Ramlal v. M.P. State Electricity Board (1977) SCR 710: This case established the rule that admissions made upon an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given are not relevant.
-
Ramaswami Naicker v. Chidambaram Chettiar (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad 376: This case held that admissions made under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of them should not be given are not relevant.
-
Moti Ram v. Hardwari Lal (1946) A.I.R. All. 426: This case held that admissions made in the course of proceedings are always relevant, even if they are made upon an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given.
-
R v. Clarke (1921) 14 Crim. App. R. 116: This English case held that admissions made by a party to a proceeding are relevant to the character of that person, even if they are not relevant to the matters in dispute.
-
Phipson on Evidence (15th Ed., para 28.08, 28.14 and 46.11): This legal treatise discusses the rule in Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act and concludes that the rule is a sound one, as it helps to prevent the admissibility of unreliable evidence.
-
Sarkar on Evidence (15th Ed., 1999 p. 407): This legal treatise also discusses the rule in Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act and concludes that the rule is necessary to protect against the dangers of fabricated or mistaken evidence.
These cases and legal treatises illustrate the importance of Section 23 of Indian Evidence Act in ensuring that the evidence presented in court is reliable and accurate.