Confession Vs Admission
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 March 2010
This query is : Resolved
What is the difference between confession and Admission?
If the person has confessed in written in front of his seniors, will it be treated as confession or admission?
Guest
(Expert) 04 March 2010
all admissions are not confessions. Admission is a statement made by a person, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, under specific circumstances. Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. All that an admission can fetch is it can operate as an estoppel.
When admission is made by an accused person that he has committed a crime, its called confession.
the main difference is admission generally used in Civil Matters, whereas confession used in criminal matters ( accused admission that he s committed a crime - conffession)
Confession made before seniors is called Extra Judicial Confession.
section 24, 25, 26 Evidence Act
Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act deal with the admissibility of confessions
by accused persons in criminal cases. But the expression "confession" is not
defined. The Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayana v. R.(1) has defined the said
expression thus:
"A confession is a statement made by an accused' which must either admit
in terms the offence. or at any rate substantially all the facts which
constitute the offence."
A scrutiny of the provisions of ss. 17 to 30 of the Evidence Act discloses, as
one learned author puts it, that statement is a genus. admission is the species
and confession is the sub-species. Shortly stated, a confession is a statement
made by an accused admitting his guilt. What does the expression "statement"
mean? The dictionary meaning of the word "statement" is "the act of stating,
reciting or presenting verbally or on paper." The term "statement" therefore,
includes both oral and written statements. Is it also a necessary ingredient of
the term that it shall be communicated to another? The dictionary meaning of the
term does not warrant any such extension; nor the reason of the rule underlying
the doctrine of admission or confession demands it. Admissions and confessions
are exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Evidence Act places them in the category
of relevant evidence, presumably on the ground that, as they are declarations
against the interest of the person making them, they are probably true. The
probative value of 89
an admission or a confession does not depend upon its communication to another,
though, just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence
only on proof. This proof in the case of oral admission or confession can be
offered only by witnesses who heard the admission or confession, as the case may
be. The following illustration pertaining to a written confession brings out the
said idea: A kills B; enters in his diary that he had killed him, puts it in his
drawer and absconds. When he places his act on record, he does not communicate
to another; indeed, he does not have any intention of communicating it to a
third party. Even so, at the trial the said statement of the accused can
certainly be proved as a confession made by him. If that be so in the case of a
statement in writing, there cannot be any difference in principle in the case of
an oral statement. Both must stand on the same footing. This aspect of the
doctrine of confession received some treatment from wellknown authors on
evidence, like Taylor, Best and Phipson. In "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence"
