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

Learn Section 19 BSA, 2023, including the rule against self-serving admissions, its three exceptions, statutory illustrations and landmark case laws.

Introduction

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs how admissions may be proved in legal proceedings. It establishes the general rule that an admission can be proved against the person who made it or their representative in interest, but ordinarily cannot be proved by that person in their own favour.

The provision is important because a person should not ordinarily be allowed to establish the truth of their own claim merely by relying on a statement they previously made. At the same time, the law recognises certain situations in which a person’s own statement may be relevant and may be used in their favour.

For example, if A files a suit against B for recovery of a loan, B may rely on A’s statement acknowledging the loan if it supports B’s defence. However, A generally cannot prove A’s own statement that the loan was repaid merely because A made that statement earlier.

Section 19 creates three exceptions to this general rule. These exceptions concern statements that would be relevant between third persons if the maker were dead, certain contemporaneous statements about a state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable, and statements that are relevant independently of their character as admissions.

Section 19 of the BSA substantially corresponds to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

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

Section 19 provides:

“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.”

The section must be read with Section 15, which defines admissions, and Section 26, which identifies circumstances in which statements made by persons who are dead or cannot be called as witnesses may be relevant.

Meaning of Section 19 BSA

In simple terms, Section 19 establishes that admissions are generally used as evidence against the person who made them, rather than as evidence in that person’s own favour.

For example, A claims that B owes A ₹50,000. B produces a message in which A acknowledged receiving repayment. The message may be relevant against A, subject to the applicable evidentiary requirements.

However, if A attempts to prove A’s own earlier statement that B owes money, A ordinarily cannot rely on that statement merely because it supports A’s claim.

The law provides three exceptions because certain statements may possess independent evidentiary value or may be relevant under other provisions of the BSA.

The central principle is that a party generally cannot prove their own admission in their own favour, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.

Essential Elements of Section 19 BSA

1. Admissions are relevant against the person making them

The general rule permits an admission to be proved against its maker or the maker’s representative in interest.

For example, if A acknowledges receiving a loan from B, B may seek to prove that acknowledgment in a recovery suit against A.

The court must still assess the meaning of the statement, its context and its evidentiary value.

2. Admissions ordinarily cannot be proved by their maker in their own favour

A person generally cannot rely on their own statement merely because it supports their case.

For example, A sues B for breach of contract and seeks to prove A’s earlier statement that B failed to perform the agreement. That statement is not ordinarily admissible in A’s favour merely as an admission made by A.

A may, however, establish the alleged breach through other admissible evidence, or the statement may qualify under one of the statutory exceptions.

3. The rule also applies to a representative in interest

Section 19 extends the general rule to a representative in interest. Such a representative cannot ordinarily prove an admission made by the person they represent merely to support their own case.

Whether a statement falls within one of the exceptions depends on the particular circumstances and the relevant statutory provision.

4. Three statutory exceptions permit admissions to be proved by their maker

Section 19 recognises three situations in which an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person who made it.

These are not unrestricted permissions to rely on self-serving statements. Each exception has its own requirements, which must be satisfied before the statement can be admitted under that exception.

Exception 1: Statements Relevant Under Section 26 BSA

Section 19(1) permits an admission to be proved by or on behalf of its maker when it is of such a nature that, if the maker were dead, the statement would be relevant between third persons under Section 26.

Section 26 deals with specified circumstances in which statements made by persons who are dead, cannot be found or cannot be called as witnesses may be relevant.

The exception recognises that a statement may have evidentiary value independently of the fact that its maker is now seeking to rely on it.

Also Read: Section 12 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Facts Showing Existence of State of Mind, Body or Bodily Feeling

Example

A is accused of committing a crime in Kolkata on a particular day. A produces a letter written by A on that day, dated at Chennai and bearing a Chennai postmark from the same date.

The date and postmark may support the claim that A was in Chennai at the relevant time. The statutory illustration permits the statement to be proved because, if A were dead, it would be relevant under Section 26.

The letter does not automatically establish that A could not have committed the crime. Its significance depends on the circumstances and the other evidence.

Legal principle: An admission may be proved by its maker when it satisfies the statutory exception connected with Section 26.

Exception 2: Statements About a State of Mind or Body

Section 19(2) permits an admission to be proved by its maker when all the following requirements are satisfied:

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

This exception concerns contemporaneous statements about a person’s mental or physical condition. A statement made long after the event, without the required connection to the relevant state or accompanying conduct, does not automatically qualify.

Example

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

The statutory illustration permits A to prove the statement because it explains conduct influenced by the facts in issue. The conduct and statement may help the court assess A’s alleged knowledge and intention.

The court must still evaluate the surrounding circumstances before deciding what inference should be drawn.

Legal principle: A contemporaneous statement about a relevant state of mind or body may be proved by its maker when accompanied by conduct that makes the statement’s falsehood improbable.

Exception 3: Statements Relevant Otherwise Than as Admissions

Section 19(3) permits an admission to be proved by or on behalf of its maker when the statement is relevant independently of its character as an admission.

This exception applies when the statement satisfies another recognised basis of relevancy under the BSA. It does not allow a party to bypass the general rule simply by describing a self-serving statement as relevant.

Example

A is accused of fraudulently possessing counterfeit currency while knowing it to be counterfeit. A seeks to prove that A asked a skilled person to examine the currency because A doubted whether it was counterfeit. The skilled person examined it and said that it was genuine.

The statutory illustration permits A to prove these facts. They may explain A’s conduct and be relevant to whether A possessed the required knowledge.

Legal principle: A statement may be proved by its maker when it is relevant on a ground other than its status as an admission.

Statutory Illustrations Under Section 19 BSA

The five statutory illustrations clarify the general rule and its exceptions.

Illustration (a): Dispute About a Forged Deed

A and B dispute whether a deed is genuine or forged. A claims that the deed is genuine, while B claims that it is forged.

A may prove B’s statement that the deed is genuine, and B may prove A’s statement that the deed is forged.

However, A cannot prove A’s own statement that the deed is genuine merely to support A’s claim, and B cannot prove B’s own statement that the deed is forged merely to support B’s claim.

Principle: An admission may ordinarily be proved against its maker, but not by its maker in their own favour.

Illustration (b): Captain Accused of Casting Away a Ship

A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting the ship away. Evidence is given that the ship was taken out of its proper course.

A produces a book maintained in the ordinary course of business, containing daily observations indicating that the ship was not taken out of its proper course.

A may prove these statements because, if A were dead, they would be admissible under Section 26.

Principle: The first exception permits certain statements to be proved by their maker when they satisfy the requirements of Section 26.

Illustration (c): Accused Person’s Location

A is accused of committing a crime in Kolkata. A produces a letter written by A, dated at Chennai on the day of the alleged crime and bearing a Chennai postmark from that date.

The statement concerning the date is admissible under the statutory illustration because it would be relevant under Section 26 if A were dead.

Principle: A statement concerning a relevant circumstance may qualify under the first exception, subject to the applicable evidentiary requirements.

Illustration (d): Receiving Stolen Goods

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

A may prove the statement because it explains conduct influenced by the facts in issue.

Principle: A statement may be used by its maker when it explains relevant conduct and satisfies the applicable exception.

Also Read: Section 18 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Admissions by Persons Expressly Referred to by Party to Suit

Illustration (e): Possession of Counterfeit Currency

A is accused of fraudulently possessing counterfeit currency while knowing it to be counterfeit. A seeks to prove that A asked a skilled person to examine the currency because A doubted whether it was counterfeit, and that the person told A it was genuine.

A may prove these facts under the statutory illustration.

Principle: Evidence explaining why a person acted in a particular way may be relevant to whether that person possessed the alleged knowledge or intention.

Practical Examples of Section 19 BSA

Situation	Application of Section 19
A acknowledges a debt, and B relies on the acknowledgment against A	The admission may be proved against its maker
A seeks to prove A’s own statement that B owes money	Ordinarily not permitted merely as an admission
An accused produces a contemporaneous letter relevant to the accused’s location	May qualify under the first exception if Section 26 applies
An accused offers a contemporaneous statement and conduct explaining an alleged state of mind	May qualify under the second exception if all statutory requirements are satisfied
An accused offers evidence explaining why counterfeit currency was examined	May qualify under the third exception where independently relevant

These examples illustrate the statutory rule. The admissibility of a particular statement depends on the precise facts and the requirements of the relevant exception.

Important Case Laws Relating to Admissions

Section 19 substantially corresponds to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The following decisions explain the general evidentiary value of admissions and remain useful for understanding the subject. They should not be described as direct interpretations of Section 19 BSA unless the judgment specifically addresses that provision.

1. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam

Citation: (1974) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1974 SC 471

Legal principle: The Supreme Court explained the importance of admissions and distinguished judicial admissions from evidentiary admissions. Judicial admissions made in pleadings or during proceedings may have a stronger procedural effect than ordinary evidentiary admissions.

Relevance: The case helps explain why an admission may be significant evidence against its maker. It also demonstrates why the legal effect of an admission depends on its nature and the context in which it was made.

2. Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi

Citation: AIR 1966 SC 405

Legal principle: The Supreme Court observed that admissions, when properly proved, constitute substantive evidence. Their evidentiary value does not depend entirely on whether the person making them enters the witness box.

Relevance: The case supports the principle that admissions may be relied upon against their maker. It should be read alongside Section 19, which governs when an admission may or may not be proved by its maker.

3. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 100

Legal principle: The Supreme Court explained that an admission is important evidence against the person making it, although it is not conclusive and may be explained or shown to be erroneous.

Relevance: The decision illustrates the evidentiary value of admissions and the need to assess them in their proper context. It complements Section 19’s distinction between proving an admission against its maker and relying on it in the maker’s own favour.

These cases explain the broader law of admissions under the earlier Evidence Act. The statutory language of Section 19 should remain the primary reference when applying the provision under the BSA.

Difference Between Section 19 and Section 25 of the BSA

Section 19 governs the circumstances in which admissions may be proved against their maker or, in limited cases, by their maker.

Section 25 provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel under the applicable provisions.

Basis	Section 19 BSA	Section 25 BSA
Main subject	Proof of admissions against their makers and by or on their behalf	Effect of admissions
Main purpose	Establishes the general rule and three exceptions	Clarifies that admissions are not conclusive proof, though they may operate as estoppel
Key question	Who may prove an admission, and in what circumstances?	What effect does an admission have once considered as evidence?

The provisions address different questions and should be read together when analysing the evidentiary effect of an admission.

Importance of Section 19 for Law Students

Section 19 is important for examinations, judicial service preparation and practical litigation because it determines when a party can rely on their own statements as evidence.

The essential points to remember are:

• Section 19 BSA corresponds substantially to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Admissions may generally be proved against their maker or the maker’s representative in interest.
• Admissions ordinarily cannot be proved by or on behalf of their maker.
• The first exception concerns statements that would be relevant between third persons 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 rendering their falsehood improbable.
• The third exception concerns statements relevant independently of their character as admissions.
• The statutory illustrations include a disputed deed, a ship captain’s logbook, an accused person’s location, and conduct explaining alleged knowledge.
• Section 19 must be distinguished from Section 25, which addresses the effect of admissions.
• The admissibility of a statement under an exception does not make it conclusive proof of the matter asserted.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

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

Section 19 governs proof of admissions against the persons who made them and the limited circumstances in which admissions may be proved by or on behalf of their makers.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 19 BSA?

Section 19 of the BSA substantially corresponds to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Can a person prove their own admission in court?

Ordinarily, a person cannot prove their own admission in their own favour. Section 19 permits this only when one of its three statutory exceptions applies.

4. What are the three exceptions under Section 19?

The exceptions concern statements that would be relevant under Section 26 if the maker were dead, certain contemporaneous statements about a state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable, and statements relevant otherwise than as admissions.

5. What is the importance of Section 26 in Section 19(1)?

Section 19(1) permits an admission to be proved by its maker if it would be relevant between third persons under Section 26 had the maker been dead. The statement must satisfy the requirements of the relevant provision of Section 26.

6. Why is conduct important under Section 19(2)?

Conduct accompanying a contemporaneous statement about a relevant state of mind or body may make the statement’s falsehood improbable. The exception requires both the relevant statement and the specified accompanying conduct.

7. Can an accused person rely on a statement explaining their conduct?

Yes, if the statement satisfies one of the exceptions under Section 19. For example, the statutory illustration permits an accused person to explain why they asked a skilled person to examine suspected counterfeit currency.

8. Are admissions conclusive proof under Section 19?

No. Section 19 concerns the proof of admissions. Section 25 separately provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel in appropriate circumstances.

Conclusion

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes the general rule that admissions may be proved against their makers but ordinarily cannot be proved by or on behalf of those makers. It recognises three carefully defined exceptions for statements that possess independent evidentiary value under Section 26, contemporaneous statements about a relevant state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making their falsehood improbable, and statements relevant on grounds other than their character as admissions.

The provision prevents parties from relying on their own unsupported statements while preserving the admissibility of statements that satisfy recognised evidentiary principles.

For examinations, focus on the general rule, all three exceptions, the five statutory illustrations and the distinction between Section 19, which governs proof of admissions, and Section 25, which addresses their effect.

dfsad