“Admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them.” Are there any exceptions to this rule? Discuss the above statement along with its exceptions.

Question: “Admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them.” Are there any exceptions to this rule? Discuss the above statement along with its exceptions. [U.P.C.J. 1991]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [“Admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them.” Are there any exceptions to this rule? Discuss the above statement along with its exceptions.]

Answer

Admission cannot be proved by or on the behalf of, the person who makes them, because a person will always naturally make statements that are favourable to him.

Generally, an admission made by one person shall be used against such person. Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act incorporate this Rule, however, Section 21 of the Act provides three exceptional circumstances wherein admission can be used by the person who has made it.

Section 21 of the evidence act says that “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 nature that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant 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 existed and is accompanied by conduct rendering it falsehood improbable.
3. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. So an admission can be used by or on behalf of the accused when such admission is also relevant otherwise than as an admission. In the case in hand Accused of receiving stolen property wishes to prove the fact that he refused to sell such goods below their market price. Accused may prove these statements because though they are admission but are explanatory of conduct influenced by a fact in issue. See illustration (d) to Section 21 of Evidence Act.

In the case of Bhim Singh v. Kamnsingh [AIR 1980 SC 727], the question was whether a certain transaction was benami and it was contended by the opposite party that the question cannot be examined on the basis of statements made several years after the date of transaction, it was held by the Supreme Court in this case that as those statements were made against the proprietary interest of the maker thereof, they were admissible under Section 21 and also Section 32, clause (3) of the Act.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X