Section 19 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf

Section 19 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Proved Sec 2(1)(f) Admission Sec 15

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 19

Section 19 establishes the core exclusionary principle that admissions may only be proved against their maker, barring self-serving statements subject to three narrow statutory exceptions.

Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: The foundational rule of Section 19 embodies the principle that no party may fabricate favorable evidence for themselves (nemo debet esse testis in propria causa).
Operational Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: Consequently, admissions are admissible strictly as adverse evidence against the maker or their representative in interest.

However, to prevent genuine injustice, the Adhiniyam enacts three strict statutory exceptions allowing a party to prove their own prior statements: (1) where the statement is of such nature that, had the maker died, it would have been admissible under Section 26 of the BSA (such as entries made in the regular course of business or statements against pecuniary interest); (2) where the statement describes a contemporaneous mental or bodily state, made when that state existed, and accompanied by conduct rendering falsehood improbable; and (3) where the statement is relevant otherwise than as an admission (such as res gestae under Section 4 or explanatory conduct under Section 6).

These exceptions ensure that authentic, spontaneous declarations made before any litigation arose can be placed before the court to demonstrate bona fides or contemporaneous reality.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Seema Silk & Sarees v. Anand Rathilal (2009) 9 SCC 569: The Supreme Court held that self-serving statements generated by a litigant cannot be admitted in their own favor under the guise of admissions, strictly applying the exclusionary mandate of this section.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (Jain Hawala Case): Ruled that loose entries or notes cannot be used as admissions against third parties named therein unless independent corroborative evidence satisfies statutory standards of admissibility.

Legal Commentary:

Criminal defence practitioners frequently utilize exception (2) of Section 19. When an accused is charged with possessing stolen property or counterfeit currency, contemporaneous statements and communications demonstrating that the accused immediately sought verification from experts are admissible in their own favor to establish innocent good faith.