“Silence may sometimes amount to admission.” Explain and Illustrate.

Question: “Silence may sometimes amount to admission.” Explain and Illustrate. [U.P.C.J. 1985, HR.J.S. 2000]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [“Silence may sometimes amount to admission.” Explain and Illustrate.]

Answer

Section 17 defines the term “admission.”

According to the definition, an admission- (i) is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, (ii) Which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and (iii) Which is made by any person under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.

Such circumstances as “hereinafter mentioned” have been mentioned in Sections 18 to 30.

A confession is a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. Thus, a confession is also an admission made by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime. Such an inference pointing towards the guilt of the accused can be drawn from even the silence of the accused person in certain circumstances. Silence may amount to admission as if there is no reply or denial. A party may admit the truth of the matter.

For instance, in the case of Bessela v. Stern (1877), L. R. 2 C. P. D. 265) the girl said to the boy “you always promised to marry me and you did not keep your words.” The boy did not deny the allegation, but he offered her some money. The boy’s silence as to promise was held to be an admission. The court held that Silence may amount to an admission when a reply is naturally expected.

Therefore, Silence may amount to an admission, in the case where there is a duty to speak. Thus, where a duty is imposed upon any person to answer the question and he abstains from answering the same, then adverse inference can be drawn and his silence may be treated as an admission. This can be illustrated by referring to Illustration (g) to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Where the question before the court is whether ‘A’ owes ‘B’ Rs. 10,000, the fact that ‘A’ asked ‘C’ to lend money to him and ‘D’ told ‘C’ in A’s presence, ‘Don’t lend him money as he already owes Rs. 10,000 to B’ and ‘A’ remains silent and without saying anything went away, in such a case, A’s silence amounts to an admission of the fact that he owed Rs. 10,000 to ‘B’ as it was his duty to speak and rebut what was said by ‘D’ but he failed to do so.

---

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