Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on Their Behalf

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 explains when admissions can be proved against a person and the exceptions permitting a person to rely on their own admissions.

Introduction

Admissions play an important role in the law of evidence because statements made by a party may help establish facts in dispute. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), Section 19 governs the circumstances in which admissions can be proved against the person who made them and the limited situations in which that person may rely on their own admissions.

The general rule is that an admission can be used against its maker or their representative in interest. However, a person ordinarily cannot rely on their own statement merely because it supports their case. The provision recognises three exceptions to this rule, ensuring that statements are considered according to their legal relevance and the circumstances in which they were made.

Section 19 is particularly important for understanding the evidentiary value of admissions in civil disputes and criminal proceedings. It must also be read alongside Section 15, which defines an admission, and Section 25, which provides that admissions are not conclusive proof, although they may operate as estoppel.

Bare Act: Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

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

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.

Statutory Illustrations

Illustration (a): Disputed authenticity of a deed

The question between A and B is whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, while B claims 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 the 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.

Illustration (b): Captain’s observations recorded in a book

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.

Illustration (c): Letter bearing a postmark

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, bearing the Chennai postmark 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.

Illustration (d): Refusal to sell stolen goods below their value

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, although they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.

Illustration (e): Seeking verification of suspected counterfeit currency

A is accused of fraudulently having counterfeit currency in his possession, knowing it to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilled person to examine the currency because he doubted whether it was counterfeit and that the person examined it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts.

Source: Section 19, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning and Explanation of Section 19 BSA

Section 19 establishes the general rule governing the use of admissions as evidence and specifies the exceptions under which a person may rely on their own statements.

An admission is a statement that suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact. It may be made orally, in writing or through an electronic or digital record, subject to the applicable statutory requirements.

The provision has two main aspects:

1. Admissions against their maker: A party’s admission may be proved against that party or their representative in interest.
2. Admissions by their maker: A party ordinarily cannot introduce their own admission to establish the truth of their case, unless one of the three statutory exceptions applies.

For example, if A admits in a written message that A borrowed ₹50,000 from B, B may seek to prove that message against A in a recovery suit. A cannot ordinarily introduce a separate self-serving statement saying that the loan was a gift and expect the statement to establish that fact merely because A made it.

The court must examine whether the statement is relevant, whether it falls within an applicable exception, and what evidentiary weight it deserves.

General Rule: Admissions Can Be Proved Against Their Maker

The primary rule under Section 19 is that an admission is relevant and may be proved against the person who made it or their representative in interest.

The rationale is that a statement acknowledging an adverse fact may have evidentiary value against the person who made it. Such a statement may support the opposing party’s case, provided the statement is relevant and admissible.

1. Admission against the person who made it

Suppose A files a suit against B for repayment of a loan. B produces a message in which A acknowledges receiving the loan and promises to repay it.

If the message is properly proved and is otherwise admissible, B may rely on A’s statement against A.

2. Admission against a representative in interest

The provision also permits an admission to be proved against the maker’s representative in interest.

A representative in interest is generally a person who derives a relevant legal interest from another person, such as a successor to an estate in an appropriate case. The precise application depends on the nature of the legal interest and the circumstances of the proceeding.

For example, a statement made by a person concerning a liability connected with an estate may be relevant in proceedings involving a successor who represents that interest. Whether the statement can actually be used against the successor depends on the applicable law and facts.

3. Why a person cannot ordinarily rely on their own admission

A person should not ordinarily be permitted to establish a disputed fact merely by producing their own favourable statement. Otherwise, a party could manufacture evidence in support of their own case.

For instance, A cannot ordinarily prove a statement made by A that a disputed deed is genuine merely because A previously described it as genuine. The opposing party may, however, prove A’s relevant admission that the deed is forged.

Also Read: Section 19 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Proof of Admissions Against Persons Making Them, and by or on Their Behalf

This rule does not mean that every statement made by a party is inadmissible when that party seeks to rely on it. Section 19 expressly recognises three exceptions.

Exceptions Under Section 19 of the BSA

Exception 1: Admissions that would be relevant under Section 26 if the maker were dead

Under the first exception, a person may prove their own admission if it is of such a nature that, had the person died, the statement would be relevant between third parties under Section 26 of the BSA.

Section 26 deals with specified circumstances in which statements made by persons who are dead, cannot be found, or fall within other prescribed categories become relevant.

The exception under Section 19(1) therefore depends on whether the particular statement satisfies the requirements of Section 26. It does not make every statement admissible simply because its maker could have died.

Example

A ship captain is prosecuted for deliberately taking a ship off its proper course. The captain produces a logbook maintained in the ordinary course of business, containing contemporaneous observations indicating that the ship remained on its proper course.

If the relevant entry satisfies the requirements of Section 26, it may be proved under Section 19(1), even though the captain seeks to rely on the record in their own defence.

The statutory illustration demonstrates that the exception may apply to records that would be relevant under the specified rule concerning statements by persons who are unavailable or deceased.

Legal significance

This exception recognises that some statements may be independently relevant under Section 26 because of their nature and the circumstances in which they were made. The maker’s attempt to rely on such a statement does not automatically exclude it.

Exception 2: Statements concerning a relevant state of mind or body

Section 19(2) permits a person to prove their own admission when all the following requirements are satisfied:

• The statement concerns the existence of a state of mind or body.
• That state of mind or body is relevant or is a fact in issue.
• The statement was made at or about the time when the state existed.
• The statement is accompanied by conduct that makes its falsehood improbable.

These conditions must be considered together.

A statement made long after an event, without supporting conduct, does not automatically qualify merely because it describes the speaker’s mental or physical condition.

What is a state of mind?

A state of mind may include intention, knowledge, belief, fear or another mental condition relevant to the case.

For example, in a prosecution involving alleged possession of counterfeit currency with knowledge of its nature, the accused may seek to prove that they expressed suspicion about the currency and immediately asked a knowledgeable person to examine it. The conduct of seeking verification may make the explanation more credible.

The court must still assess the complete evidence and determine whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled.

What is a state of body?

A state of body concerns a person’s physical condition, such as pain, illness or another relevant bodily state.

For example, a person who contemporaneously reports severe pain and immediately seeks medical assistance may seek to rely on the statement, where the physical condition is relevant and the surrounding conduct makes the statement’s falsehood improbable.

This is an illustrative example of the statutory principle, not a separate statutory illustration.

Why must the statement be contemporaneous?

The requirement that the statement be made at or about the time the relevant state existed helps connect the statement to the actual condition. A statement made at the relevant time may be more informative than a later account created after the dispute has arisen.

However, contemporaneity alone is insufficient. The accompanying conduct must also satisfy the statutory requirement.

Exception 3: Admissions relevant otherwise than as admissions

Section 19(3) allows a person to prove their own admission if it is relevant on a ground other than its character as an admission.

The statement is then admissible because it independently satisfies another rule of relevance, rather than merely because the maker made it.

Example

A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing that they were stolen. A seeks to prove that A refused to sell the goods below their value.

The statement may be proved because it explains conduct influenced by a fact in issue. Its relevance does not depend solely on treating the statement as an admission.

Similarly, an accused may seek to prove that they asked a skilled person to examine suspected counterfeit currency and were told that it was genuine. The evidence may be relevant to explain the accused’s conduct and address the allegation of knowledge.

The court must still determine whether the evidence is relevant and admissible under the applicable provisions.

Difference Between the Three Exceptions

Exception	Legal basis	Essential requirement
Section 19(1)	Relevance under Section 26	The statement would be relevant between third parties if the maker were dead.
Section 19(2)	Statement concerning a state of mind or body	The statement is contemporaneous with the relevant state and accompanied by conduct making its falsehood improbable.
Section 19(3)	Independent relevance	The statement is relevant under another rule of law, apart from its character as an admission.

The three exceptions operate on different grounds. A party seeking to rely on an admission must establish the requirements of the particular exception invoked.

Statutory Illustrations Explained in Simple Language

The illustrations accompanying Section 19 demonstrate how the general rule and exceptions operate in practice.

Illustration	Principle	Explanation
(a) Disputed deed	General rule	A party may prove the opposing party’s relevant statement, but cannot ordinarily rely on their own favourable statement as an admission.
(b) Captain’s logbook	Section 19(1)	A record may be relied upon if it would be relevant under Section 26 if the maker were dead.
(c) Dated letter and postmark	Section 19(1)	The date stated in a letter may be admissible where the statement satisfies the relevant statutory conditions.
(d) Refusal to sell stolen goods below their value	Section 19(3)	The statement may be proved because it explains conduct connected with a fact in issue.
(e) Examination of suspected counterfeit currency	Section 19(3)	The accused may prove conduct and related statements that are independently relevant to explain the accused’s state of knowledge.

These illustrations should be read with the statutory language. They do not create a general right to introduce every self-serving statement into evidence.

Practical Examples of Section 19 BSA

Example 1: Admission of a loan

A borrows ₹1,00,000 from B. In a WhatsApp message, A acknowledges the debt and promises to repay it.

B may seek to prove the message against A, subject to the rules governing relevance, authenticity and admissibility of electronic records.

Principle: An admission may be used against its maker.

Example 2: Self-serving statement about a contract

A claims that a written contract was validly executed. A attempts to prove an earlier statement made by A declaring that the contract was genuine.

A cannot ordinarily rely on that statement merely as A’s own admission. The statement must independently qualify under an applicable exception or another rule of evidence.

Principle: A party cannot ordinarily establish a disputed fact through their own favourable admission alone.

Also Read: Section 17 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Admissions by Persons Whose Position Must Be Proved as Against a Party to Suit

Example 3: Contemporaneous statement about physical pain

Following an accident, A immediately complains of severe pain and seeks medical treatment. A later files a claim in which the physical condition is relevant.

The contemporaneous statement and accompanying conduct may be considered under Section 19(2), provided all statutory requirements are satisfied.

Principle: A statement concerning a relevant bodily state may be proved by its maker when the statutory conditions are met.

Example 4: Statement independently relevant to conduct

A is accused of knowingly possessing counterfeit notes. A seeks to prove that A had expressed doubts about the notes and asked a currency expert to examine them.

The statement and related conduct may be relevant to explain A’s behaviour, subject to the applicable evidentiary rules.

Principle: An admission may be proved by its maker if it is relevant on a ground other than its character as an admission.

Relevant Case Laws on Admissions

Section 19 of the BSA substantially carries forward the rule contained in Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Judicial decisions interpreting the earlier provision may therefore assist in understanding the corresponding principles, subject to the statutory text and the facts of each case.

The following authorities concern admissions and their evidentiary effect under the former Evidence Act. They should not be described as direct interpretations of Section 19 of the BSA.

1. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram, (1974) 1 SCC 242

Legal principle: The Supreme Court distinguished between admissions made in pleadings or during judicial proceedings and evidentiary admissions made outside the proceedings. Judicial admissions can have a stronger procedural effect, while evidentiary admissions are relevant but may be explained or rebutted.

Relevance to Section 19: The decision helps explain why an admission’s legal effect depends on its nature and context. Section 19 addresses when admissions may be proved by or against their maker; it does not make every admission conclusive proof of the fact admitted.

2. Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal, (1979) 4 SCC 491

Legal principle: The Supreme Court recognised that admissions are substantive evidence of the facts admitted, although their weight and effect depend on the circumstances and the evidence as a whole.

Relevance to Section 19: The decision supports the distinction between the relevance of an admission and the final conclusion the court may draw from it. An admission may be relied upon against its maker, but its ultimate effect must be assessed in the context of the case.

3. Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405

Legal principle: The Supreme Court explained the evidentiary significance of admissions and recognised that admissions may constitute substantive evidence, subject to the circumstances of the case.

Relevance to Section 19: The decision assists in understanding the evidentiary role of admissions. It does not eliminate the need to establish that the statement is relevant and admissible under the applicable statutory provisions.

Important note: These decisions concern general principles of admissions under the former Indian Evidence Act. They are included as contextual authorities, not as judgments directly interpreting Section 19 of the BSA or specifically deciding each of its three exceptions.

Section 19 BSA and Related Provisions

Section 19 should be read with other provisions governing admissions and their evidentiary effect.

Provision	Subject	Relationship with Section 19
Section 15, BSA	Admission defined	Establishes the meaning of an admission.
Section 16, BSA	Admission by party to proceeding or agent	Identifies statements that may constitute admissions by parties or authorised agents.
Section 17, BSA	Admissions by persons whose position must be proved against a party	Deals with admissions made by persons whose position or liability is relevant to a party’s case.
Section 18, BSA	Admissions by persons expressly referred to by a party	Addresses statements by persons expressly referred to for information about a disputed matter.
Section 20, BSA	Oral admissions as to contents of documents	Specifies when oral admissions about documentary contents are relevant.
Section 25, BSA	Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop	Clarifies that admissions are not automatically conclusive, although they may operate as estoppel.
Section 26, BSA	Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses	Provides the statutory basis for the first exception under Section 19.

Section 19 and Section 25: Are admissions conclusive proof?

No. Section 19 determines when an admission may be proved against or by its maker. Section 25 provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel.

An admission can be strong evidence, but it does not automatically settle every disputed issue. Its meaning, authenticity, context and consistency with other evidence may be relevant to the court’s assessment.

Corresponding Provision Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The corresponding provision was Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.

Section 19 of the BSA substantially reproduces the earlier provision. The principal continuity is the general prohibition against a person relying on their own admission, subject to the three recognised exceptions.

The cross-reference in the first exception has been updated: Section 19(1) of the BSA refers to Section 26 of the BSA, whereas the corresponding provision under the former Act referred to Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by Section 170 of the BSA with effect from 1 July 2024, subject to the savings provisions. Proceedings covered by the statutory savings may continue to be governed by the former Act. The applicable legislation should therefore be determined with reference to Section 170 and the circumstances of the particular proceeding.

Important Points for Law School and Judiciary Examinations

• Section 19 of the BSA deals with proof of admissions against their makers and by or on their behalf.
• The corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was Section 21.
• The general rule permits admissions to be proved against their maker or their representative in interest.
• A person ordinarily cannot prove their own admission merely to support their case.
• Section 19 recognises three exceptions.
• The first exception concerns statements that would be relevant under Section 26 if the maker were dead.
• The second exception concerns contemporaneous statements about a relevant state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable.
• The third exception applies when the admission is independently relevant on another legal ground.
• An admission is not automatically conclusive proof of the fact admitted.
• Section 25 of the BSA expressly addresses the non-conclusive nature of admissions and their possible operation as estoppel.
• Decisions under Section 21 of the former Evidence Act may be relevant to understanding corresponding principles, but should not be misrepresented as direct interpretations of the BSA.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 19 governs the proof of admissions against the person who made them or their representative in interest. It also establishes three exceptions under which an admission may be proved by or on behalf of its maker.

2. What is the general rule under Section 19 BSA?

The general rule is that an admission may be proved against its maker or their representative in interest, but ordinarily cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who made it.

3. What are the three exceptions under Section 19 BSA?

The three exceptions cover admissions that would be relevant under Section 26 if the maker were dead, contemporaneous statements concerning a relevant state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable, and admissions independently relevant on another legal ground.

4. Can a person use their own admission as evidence?

Ordinarily, a person cannot rely on their own admission merely because it supports their case. However, the person may prove the statement if one of the three exceptions under Section 19 applies.

5. What is the difference between Section 19 BSA and Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Section 19 of the BSA substantially reproduces Section 21 of the former Indian Evidence Act. Both provisions establish the general rule and the three exceptions governing proof of admissions by or against their makers. The cross-reference in the first exception now refers to Section 26 of the BSA.

6. Are admissions conclusive proof under Section 19 BSA?

No. Section 19 concerns when admissions may be proved. Section 25 provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel.

7. Is an admission the same as a confession?

No. An admission is a broader evidentiary concept and may concern any fact in issue or relevant fact. A confession is a statement acknowledging guilt or substantially admitting the offence. Confessions are subject to additional statutory rules, particularly Sections 22 and 23 of the BSA.

8. Can an admission be made through an electronic message?

An electronic message may contain a statement that qualifies as an admission. However, its authenticity, relevance and admissibility must be assessed under the applicable provisions governing admissions and electronic or digital records.

9. Does Section 19 apply to both civil and criminal proceedings?

The provision forms part of the general law of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings within the scope of the BSA. Its application in a particular criminal proceeding must also be considered alongside the specific statutory rules governing confessions and other evidence.

10. Why is Section 19 important for judiciary examinations?

Section 19 is frequently relevant to questions on admissions, evidentiary value, exceptions to the rule against self-serving statements, and the correspondence between the BSA and the former Indian Evidence Act. Candidates should understand all three exceptions and distinguish admissibility from the weight ultimately given to evidence.

Conclusion

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes an important rule concerning the evidentiary use of admissions. Although an admission may ordinarily be proved against its maker or their representative in interest, the maker cannot generally rely on their own admission merely because it supports their case.

The provision recognises three exceptions involving statements relevant under Section 26, contemporaneous statements about a relevant state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable, and statements that are independently relevant under another rule of evidence.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, the key is to understand the distinction between the general rule and its exceptions, the corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the principle that an admission is not automatically conclusive proof. The court must assess the statement in accordance with the statutory requirements and the evidence as a whole.

dfsad