Admission | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides a structured and progressive approach to admission, ensuring fairness and adaptability in evidence law
In July 2024, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam replaced the long-standing primary legislation, the Indian Evidence Act, which dealt with the evidence in a trial. This legislation sought to modernise the evidentiary framework to address technological advancements and evolving legal needs. This article talks about the admission under the newly introduced Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Sections 15 to 21 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Section 15 to section 21 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter "Act") talks about the admission of the evidence. Before delving into the topic, it is necessary to understand how the Act defines admission. Section 15 defines "Admission" as
"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."
Simply put, it is the voluntary acceptance of the truth or the acknowledgement of facts relevant to the case and has considerable evidentiary relevance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Singh & Others v. Mst. Bhagirathi (1965), has held that Admissions, as per Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), are substantive evidence but cannot be considered conclusive proof. Their admissibility remains unaffected by the maker's presence or contradiction in court. However, their evidentiary weight differs from their admissibility and purpose in proving facts.
Section 16 of the Act talks about the statements made by the parties to the proceedings and by their agent whom the party have authorised with the permission of the court, sub-section 2 talks about the statements by the people in representative character, the point which needs to be noted here is that this applies only to the statements made in the representative character, and admission made in the personal capacity of such representatives will not constitute as valid admissions.
In a similar vein, sections 17 and along with section 18 discuss the situations and circumstances where the admissions by the third party become valid admission in a suit; section 17 talks about the admissions of the third party to decide the case. Here, what becomes important is that the admissions made by the third party should be in the course when they have been part of such circumstance; whilst section 18 says relates to statements made by individuals explicitly referred to by a party for information regarding a matter in dispute.
Section 19 of the Act states that the admissions made by the parties would be relevant against them or their representatives, but the section creates a general exception to this rule, which is an admission made by the person who is dead, their statements made would still be considered as relevant to the third parties; secondly, admissions made by the person could be proved when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body and is accompanied by the conduct which proves that the admissions are genuine, thirdly when the statements made by a person is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Illustration:
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 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.
Section 20 deals with the relevance of oral admissions regarding the contents of documents. This section states that such admissions shall not be considered admissible unless the party proposing to prove them is entitled to provide secondary evidence of the document's contents, as per the rules. However, this is subject to the condition that the authenticity of the document is not in question.
Section 21 states that the admissions could not be used as valid evidence where the parties have agreed to keep such admission confidential or in cases where they have agreed not to use such an admission as evidence in a suit.
Judicial Pronouncements
While the government has introduced the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, replacing the long-standing Indian Evidence Act of 1872, a reading of it, shows that it has not deviated much from the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the older judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various high courts remain relevant.
One such ruling which comes up while discussing the admissibility of evidence in criminal jurisprudence in India is Basant Singh v. Janki Singh (1966); it is the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court where the court laid down the following directions for the admissibility of the evidence.
The statements made in pleadings may be considered as evidence.
- The court is not bound to accept all statements as accurate; it may accept those deemed relevant and reject others. (D. S. Mohite v. S. I. Mohite, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 153)
- Admissions made by a party in pleadings hold the same evidentiary value as other admissions.
- While relying on the English position, the court reaffirmed that a party’s admission, as stated in pleadings, can be used as evidence against them in future legal proceedings, provided they are signed and verified.
- For the admissions to have valid admissibility for the evidence, it shall be read and taken into consideration in its entirety rather than relying on fragmented interpretations.
- Admissions are not conclusive proofs; their accuracy must be proved by both parties, depending on who makes the claim.
- A guilty plea by an accused is admissible only if it is recorded in their own words.
- Admissions must be made voluntarily to hold significant evidentiary weight.
- Admissions act as initial evidence but do not carry conclusive value.
- Clear and voluntary admissions by an accused are strong corroboration for allegations against them.
While talking about the admissions or evidence in general, the question which arises is what is relevant and what is not, also it is not very uncommon that the parties, while being involved in a trial, make the admissions all the time; some are relevant to the case, and some are not; another significant ruling of the Supreme Court which addresses this issue is the ruling of the Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar And Others (1998), the court while explaining the distinction between the relevancy and the admissibility stated
“More often the expressions “relevancy and admissibility” are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different for more often than not facts which are relevant may not be admissible, for example, communication made by spouses during marriage or between an advocate and his client though relevant are not admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for example, questions permitted to be put in cross-examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of witnesses, though not relevant are admissible.”
Furthermore, it was held in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ashulal Nanji Bismol (2001), that it is up to the court to decide which admission is relevant to the ongoing proceedings and which is not.
One of the critical aspects of admissions is the admissibility of electronic evidence as admissions, which has been gaining traction in the past few decades. Section 15 of the Act, similar to that of the earlier Act, allows electronic admissions, such as emails and other documents, to be admissible, provided their authenticity is established.
The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), emphasised the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 65A and 65B (now sections 62 and 63 of the Act) for such evidence. Although the court tried to take the reformative approach by mandating a certificate under Section 65-B(4) as the sole mode of proof for electronic evidence, the judgment fails to account for the flexibility intended within the statutory framework and the practical challenges the parties face.
Furthermore, the new Act has amended the erstwhile provisions, but their effects on the system, which is facing difficulties with electronic evidence, are yet to be seen. The issue which is left by the legislation unanswered is that it has failed to provide the distinction between "electronic form" and "electronic records", which was there in the Indian Evidence Act, which referred to Sections 2(r) and 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In contrast, the BSA uses these terms interchangeably without providing definitions. This vagueness could potentially create a loophole, thereby making the system more complicated.
Another critical issue is whether admissions are voluntary, especially in criminal cases. Courts need to examine the context and conditions where an admission happens closely. They must check if it comes without force or pressure. This principle, repeated in Basant Singh v. Janki Singh (1966), continues to lead courts in judging how much evidence such admissions provide. Also, admissions are sometimes given orally or indirectly, possibly leading to confusion.
The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has attempted to solve this by incorporating provisions admissions by other people, like agents or previous parties, who are primarily not the main party, as seen in Sections 16 to 19. These rules let courts use statements from others, not just the main parties.
The admissibility of evidence holds critical value within the Indian Justice System. It makes sure only relevant and dependable evidence is seen in the court. There are several provisions in the Act. These provisions govern the admissibility of evidence. The proper application and implementation of these provisions are intended to ensure that justice is rightfully served.
References
[1] Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
[2] Basant Singh v. Janki Singh 1967 AIR SC 341
[3] Bharat Singh & Others v. Mst. Bhagirathi, 1966 AIR SC 405
[4] Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar And Others, 1998 AIR SC 1647
[5] Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 180.
