Scope of Section 21:
The general rule is that admissions cannot be proved by, or on behalf of, the person who makes them, because a person will always naturally make statements that are favourable to him. To this principle, three exceptions are laid down in S. 21.
Image Source: media.nbcphiladelphia.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Admissions cannot be proved by, or on behalf of, the person who makes them, except in the following three cases:
Exception 1:
When the admission is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
Illustration:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) 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, indicating that 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 92, clause (2).
(ii) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
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).
Exception 2:
When the admission 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 a state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
Illustration:
(i) 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.
(ii) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession a counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit.
He offers to prove that he asked a skilled person to examine the coin, as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person did examine it and told him that it was genuine.
A may prove these facts for the reason stated in the last preceding Illustrationtration.
The state of man’s mind or body is relevant under S. 14; and statements narrating such facts indicating the state of mind or body may be proved on behalf of the person narrating them. But, such statements should have been made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed. (See the above Illustrationtrations.)
Section 14 merely declares that such statements are relevant. This clause shows that such facts or statements may be proved on behalf of the person making them, notwithstanding the general rule that persons cannot make evidence for themselves by what they choose to say.
Exception 3:
If the admission is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
The state of a man’s mind or body, relevant under Ss. 6 to 13, will not be rendered inadmissible because they may be proved on behalf of the person making them.
This exception is intended to apply to cases in which the statement is sought to be used in evidence otherwise than as an admission, for instance, as part of the res gestae or as a statement accompanying or explaining particular conduct. Thus, a statement which is inadmissible as an admission under the general rule can be made admissible as such by reference to this exception.
In one case, Defendants Nos. 2 and 4 sold a piece of property to Defendant No. 1, which they obtained under a partition, and subsequently colluded with the Plaintiff and denied the partition as well as the sale. In the circumstances, statement made by Defendants Nos. 2 and 4 in a Petition and a written statement filed by them in other previous suits, which showed that there had been a partition, were held to be admissible against them under Exception 3. (Gyannessa v. Mobarakannessa, 1897 25 Cal. 210)