Welcome to LawTutorial.in – Your Partner in Understanding Law
Join Now

BSA 2023 — Section 19: Proof of admissions against persons making them

§ SECTION 19 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf

Admissions are a sword against their maker — never his shield… except through three narrow keys: § 26-worthy words, a fresh state backed by conduct, and relevancy by another door.

How to read Section 19

One wall, three keys, five illustrations.

What it is about

Admissions may be proved against their maker (and his representative in interest) — but not by him, save in three cases.

Why the wall

Self-made evidence is cheap — anyone can talk in his own favour. The law shuts that factory down.

The three keys

(1) words § 26 would preserve after death; (2) a fresh state of mind or body + confirming conduct; (3) relevancy by another door.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 19 · verbatim

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, namely:—

(1)an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 26;
(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 its 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.
Illustrations

(a) 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.

(b) 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, and 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 clause (b) of section 26.

(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Kolkata. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Chennai on that day, and bearing the Chennai 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 clause (b) of section 26.

(d) 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.

(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit currency which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the currency as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts.

In short: your words serve your opponent freely — they serve you only through three keys: words trustworthy enough that § 26 would preserve them after your death; a fresh statement of mind or body backed by conduct; or relevancy under some other section.

→ The pattern of the keys is one idea: circumstances, not self-interest, vouch for the words.

Glossary

representative in interest

One who takes the maker’s interest — heir, assignee, successor.

self-serving statement

Words made in one’s own favour — the thing the wall keeps out.

section 26

The gateway key 1 borrows: statements of persons who cannot be called — dying declarations, business records and kin.

contemporaneous

Made at or about the time of the state of mind or body — key 2’s clock.

otherwise than as an admission

Key 3 — if another section makes the words relevant, the admission label is no bar.

The picture

The wall — and its three keys.

YOUR ADMISSIONwords that touch the caseAGAINST you — freely ✓the opponent proves it(and against your successors too)BY you ✗ the wallKEY 1 · § 26-WORTHYwould survive the maker’s deathKEY 2 · FRESH STATEmind/body then + confirming conductKEY 3 · ANOTHER DOORrelevant otherwise than as admissionprovable BY you ✓

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

the ruleA sword — never a shield

In one lineAdmissions are proved against their maker — never by him… except through three narrow keys.
1Your words, their weaponadmissions are provedAGAINST you2Never your shieldyou cannot prove your ownfavourable statements3Except three keys§ 26-worthy · fresh state+ conduct · another doorevidence you make for yourself is cheap — hence the bar
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest;the swordyour words are a weapon against you — and against those who take your interest.
but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest,⚠ no self-serviceyou cannot manufacture evidence for yourself — your favourable statements stay out…
except in the following cases, namely:—three keys…except through three narrow keys.
ExampleA sends a WhatsApp: “I already paid him the full amount”. The other side may prove that message if it hurts A — but A himself cannot put in his own message to prove payment.
✗ Not thisThe bar works one way only: it stops self-made evidence — it never stops the opponent from proving your words against you.

the three keysWhen your own words CAN serve you

In one lineKey 1: words that would survive your death (§ 26). Key 2: a fresh state-of-mind/body statement backed by conduct. Key 3: words relevant through some other section.
1Key 1the ship’s log, the dated letter —§ 26-worthy words2Key 2“I doubted the note” — said then,and he had it examined3Key 3relevant otherwise than asan admission — another doorthree keys — each cut for words too trustworthy to waste
(1) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 26;key 1 · the § 26 testwords that would survive even if you died — a business log, a dated letter — are trustworthy enough to serve you alive.
(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 its falsehood improbable;key 2 · fresh state + conducta contemporaneous statement of mind or body — backed by conduct that makes lying 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.key 3 · another doorif the words qualify under some other section, they enter by that door — the admission label does not block them.
ExampleIllustration (b) lives key 1: the captain’s daily navigation log, kept in the ordinary course of business, may be proved by the captain himself — if he were dead it would enter under § 26, so alive he may use it too.
✗ Not thisKey 2 is narrow: the statement must be contemporaneous with the state of mind or body and accompanied by conduct making falsehood improbable — a later, bare self-serving claim fails both limbs.

IllustrationsThe five pictures the Act itself gives

In one lineThe forged deed (the bar) · the ship’s log and the Chennai letter (key 1) · the refused sale and the examined note (keys 2 & 3).
(a) the deed⚠ the bareach side may prove the other’s statement; neither may prove his own.
(b) the ship’s logkey 1the captain’s course-book, kept day by day in the course of business — provable by him.
(c) the Chennai letterkey 1his own letter’s date and postmark place him at Chennai on the day of the Kolkata crime.
(d) the refused salekeys 2/3“I refused to sell below value” — explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) the examined notekeys 2/3he doubted the currency, had an expert examine it, and was told it was genuine — provable by him.
A — “genuine”B — “forged”the deedeach may prove the OTHER’s statement ✓self ✗self ✗(a) Cross-proof ✓, self-proof ✗ — the bar in one picture.
the daily log — kept in course of business(b) The captain’s daily log — § 26-worthy, so he may prove it himself.
CHENNAIthat daythe Kolkata crime — same dayhis own letter’s date & postmark — provable by him(c) His own letter’s Chennai date and postmark — admissible via key 1.
“half price? sell!”A refused to sell below value“No. Full price.”(d) He refused to sell below value — his words explain conduct, so he may prove them.
A — doubted the note“it’s genuine”the expert examined it(e) He doubted the note and had it examined — A may prove these facts.
ExampleRead the gallery as the section’s architecture: (a) is the wall; (b) and (c) are key 1; (d) and (e) show the mind-and-conduct keys at work.

Connected provisions

§§ 15–18

The admissions so far

What an admission is, and who may make one — § 19 now fixes who may prove it.

§ 26

The key-1 gateway

Statements of persons who cannot be called — the trust-standard key 1 borrows.

§ 20 · next

Oral admissions & documents

When oral admissions about the contents of documents are relevant.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 21

This provision carries forward section 21 of the repealed Evidence Act.