Indian Evidence Act 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 makes 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 relevant as between third persons under section 32.
2. An admission may by 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 existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
3. An admission may be proved by on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Illustrations

1. 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 the deed is forged; 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.
2. 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 book 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 mat the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32, clause (2).
3. 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 post mark of that day.
   The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2).
4. A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
   He offers 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.
5. A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit.
   He offers to prove that he asked a skillful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person did examine it and told him it was genuine.
   A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.

Simplified Explanation

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 outlines the conditions under which admissions can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. It generally states that admissions are relevant and can be proved against the person who made them or their representatives, but it also sets out specific exceptions where admissions can be proved on behalf of the person who made them.

Explanation:

• General Rule: Admissions can be used as evidence against the person who made them or their representative (e.g., in cases of death, the legal heirs). This means if a party to a case admits something that is relevant to the facts in issue, that admission can be used against them in court.
• Proving Admissions on Behalf of the Maker: Generally, a person cannot use their own admissions as evidence to support their case, except in certain situations:
  1. Section 32 Exception: If the admission would be relevant under Section 32 (which deals with cases where the person making the statement is dead or cannot be found, and the statement is relevant to the case), it can be used as evidence by the person who made it or their representative.
  2. State of Mind or Body: If the admission relates to the person’s state of mind, emotion, or bodily condition at the time, and there is conduct accompanying the admission that makes it unlikely to be false, it can be used as evidence.
  3. Relevancy Outside of Admission: If the admission is relevant for reasons other than it being an admission (e.g., it proves a fact independently of being an admission), it can be used as evidence.

Example:

Imagine a case where A sues B for a debt, and during a conversation, B admits to A that they owe the money but later retracts the statement.

• Admission Against the Person: A can use B’s admission (“I owe you the money”) as evidence against B in court. This admission is relevant because it directly acknowledges the debt.
• Attempt to Prove Admission by the Maker: If B tries to argue that the admission (“I owe you the money”) should not be used against them by claiming it was made under duress or as a joke, B cannot generally use this admission in their favor unless:
  1. B could show that if they were dead, this statement would be relevant as between third parties (e.g., in a will dispute).
  2. The admission relates to B’s mental state at the time, like “I was really stressed and said things I didn’t mean.”
  3. The statement is relevant in another way, such as showing B’s financial records to argue that the admission was factually accurate.

Significance:

Section 21 is significant because it outlines how admissions, which are powerful pieces of evidence, can be used in legal proceedings. The general rule allows admissions to be used against the person who made them, reinforcing accountability for one’s statements. The exceptions provided in the section are important safeguards, ensuring that admissions can be considered in specific circumstances where they might otherwise be excluded, such as when they are crucial to proving a state of mind or when they would be relevant if the person were not available to testify. This balance helps ensure that admissions are used fairly and appropriately in court.