Section 27 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated

Section 27 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated

Official Bare Act Text

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

Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:

Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

Explanation. — —A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

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

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 27

Section 27 clarifies that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but may operate as an estoppel under Chapter VIII of the Adhiniyam, establishing the rebuttable nature of evidentiary admissions.

Rebuttable Character: An admission is a relevant piece of evidence shifting the evidentiary burden, but does not amount to conclusive proof under Section 2.
Right of Explanation: The party against whom an admission is proved retains the absolute statutory right to explain, qualify, or demonstrate that it was mistaken or made under coercion.
Bridge to Estoppel: Where an admission induces the adverse party to alter their position to their detriment, the admission crystallizes into a binding estoppel under Section 121.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (AIR 1956 SC 593): The Supreme Court delivered the definitive ruling: an admission is not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but is decisive of the matter if not successfully withdrawn or explained away.
Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal (1979) 4 SCC 790: Held that evidentiary admissions made in pleadings or earlier correspondence can be shown to be erroneous or untruthful unless they have ripened into an estoppel.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Litigators must distinguish judicial admissions (in pleadings under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC) from evidentiary admissions. An evidentiary admission under Section 27 can always be neutralized during witness examination by proving mistake of fact or duress.