Daily Practice Quiz #7 (Section 10 - Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
1) Read the theory given below before attempting the Quiz.
2) To attempt the Quiz click on "START QUIZ" button given at the end of the Theory.
3) There will be no time limit to complete the Quiz.
4) There will be no negative marking in this Quiz.
5) The Quiz will have 10 Questions.
Things Said or Done By Conspirator In Reference To Common Intention [Sec. 10]
Sec. 10 deals with relevancy of facts in cases of conspiracy.
According to sec. 10, “Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more person have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by any one of such person in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the person believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.” Facts in this section are all separate and independent acts, not connected to each other, but for the conspiracy. Therefore, prima facie existence of conspiracy is sine qua non for the applicability of sec. 10. Unless prima facie existence of conspiracy is proved, facts under this section do not become relevant.
Words “where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more person have conspired together” imply exactly that. The expression ‘reasonable ground to believe’ does not mean that conspiracy should be proved before these facts become relevant. It certainly contemplates something short of actual proof and means that there should exists prima facie evidence in support of the existence of the conspiracy between two or more accused persons.
The term conspiracy means a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful and harmful or something which is not unlawful but by unlawful means. According to Stephen, “when two or more persons agree to commit any crime, they are guilty of conspiracy whether the crime was committed or not”.
It is not necessary in order to constitute a conspiracy that the acts agreed to be done should be acts which if done should be criminal. A conspiracy consists of unlawful combination of two or more persons to do that which is contrary to law or to do that which is wrongful towards other persons. A mere agreement to commit an offence becomes criminal conspiracy.
Ingredients of Conspiracy
1. There must be an agreement between two or more persons who are alleged to conspire, and
2. The agreement should be to do or cause to be done:
(a) An illegal act, or
(b) An act which is not illegal but by illegal means.
Emperor v Shafie Ahmed
It was held that if two or more persons conspire together to commit an offence, each is regarded as the agent of the other, and just the principal is liable for the acts of agent, so each conspirator is liable for what is done by his fellow conspirator, in furtherance of the common intention entertained by both of them.
Badri Roy v State
It has been held that sec. 10 of the Evidence Act has been deliberately enacted in order to make such acts or statements of the co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of the crime.
A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, and executed in darkness. Naturally, therefore it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts or statement of the others, unless there is Common bond linking all of them together.
When any conspirator has assumed to do any act of conspiracy in furtherance of common design, it is a part of res gestae. All conspirators must have “common intention” at the time when the thing was said, done or written
It is held that confessions by accused made after the object of the conspiracy is carried out are not relevant as the common intention was not then existing. In fact, the rule is that confession made by the accused after common intention of parties was no longer in existence, sec. 10 cannot be invoked against co-accused.
Once it is shown that a person is out of conspiracy and statement made to the police officer during post arrest period, whether such statement is a confession or otherwise touching his involvement in the conspiracy, would not fall within the ambit of this section.
A person may be out of a conspiracy
1. because he drops out, or
2. because the conspiracy itself ends.
Facts Not otherwise Relevant [Sec. 11]
According to sec. 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant
1. if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
2. if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or nonexistence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Secs. 6-55 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with different types of facts and make them relevant. Certain facts which are not relevant under other sections are made relevant under sec. 11. Therefore, this section is regarded as a residuary section. The effect of this section is, therefore, to clearly enlarge the classes of relevant facts. A fact would be relevant if the conditions specified in clauses (1) and (2) as explained by illustrations are fulfilled.
These clauses are so broadly worded that it, on the first reading, appears that they induct logical relevancy into the Indian Evidence Act, and all other provisions in the Act in respect of relevancy are rendered redundant. However, it is not true. For the purpose of interpretation, a statute should be read as a whole, and every provision in the statute must be understood with in the context of other provisions in the statute. Thus, if there is any provision or a set of provisions in the Act which deal with any particular aspect of relevancy of facts, sec. 11 is not applicable to such relevancy ‘Not otherwise relevant’ does not mean that such a fact is declared to be not relevant under other sections, but that such a fact does not come under any other sections.
Thus, we have three situations:
1. A fact is declared to be relevant under any other section of the sections dealing with relevancy of facts, i.e., secs. 6-55. The fact is relevant under that section.
2. A fact is declared to be not relevant under any other section of these sections. The fact is not relevant.
3. A fact is neither declared to be relevant, nor declared to be not relevant. It may be relevant under sec. 11 if the requirements of that section are fulfilled.
So also, at first sight, it would appear that this section would make every fact relevant because of the wording of clause (b). But care must be taken not to give this section an improperly wide scope by a liberal interpretation of the phrase “highly probable or improbable”.
Jhabwala vs. Emperor
It was held that “The words ‘highly probable or improbable’ indicate that the connection between the facts in issue and the collateral facts sought to be proved must be immediate so as to render the co-existence of the two highly probable. The relevant facts under this section either (i) exclude, or (ii) imply, more or less distinctly, the existence of the fact sought to be proved.”
Rajendra Singh vs. Ramganit Singh
It was observed that the words “highly probable” are of great importance, and the fact sought to be proved must be so closely connected with the fact in issue or the relevant fact, that a Court will not be in a position to determine it without taking them into consideration. Sec. 11 declares as admissible, facts which are logically relevant to prove or disprove the main fact or the fact in issue.
There may be collateral facts which have no connection with the main fact, except by way of disproving any material facts proved or asserted by the other side, i.e., when they are such as to make the existence of the fact so “highly improbable” as to justify the inference that it never existed.
Well-known instances of application of the first limb of sec. 11 are:
(a) Alibi: Alibi is a Latin word, which means elsewhere. It is used when the accused takes the plea that when the occurrence took place he was elsewhere. In such a situation the prosecution has to discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the prosecution is successful in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused who takes the place of alibi to prove it with absolute certainly.
The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant
(b) Non Access of Husband to Show Illegitimacy of the Child: Since legitimacy of the child implies a cohabitation between husband and wife, for disproving the legitimacy the husband has to prove that he had no cohabitation with his wife during the probable time of begetting as he was in abroad.
(c) Survival of the Murder Victim: That the victim was alive on a date subsequent to the date on which it is alleged that the accused committed his murder, is relevant under cl. (1) of sec. 11, as the same is inconsistent with the charge against the accused.
A is accused of murdering В on 10th August 2014. A offers to prove that В was alive on 25th December 2016. As the fact is inconsistent with the charge against A, it is relevant under cl. (1) of sec. 11.
(d) Commission of the Offence by a Third Person: Where a person accused of an offence wants to show that the offence was committed by some other person, in the circumstances in which the offence could not have been committed by both of them, the fact is relevant under cl. (1) of sec. 11.
A is charged with the murder of B. A wants to lead evidence that В was murdered by C. This is admissible being inconsistent with fact in issue.
(e) Self Infliction of Harm: That the victim committed suicide, is a fact relevant under cl. (1) of sec. 11 to show that he was not murdered by the accused.
A is charged with the murder of B. A proves that В had committed suicide. The evidence is admissible.
(f) Non-execution of Document: That a document has not yet been executed is a relevant fact in a suit for performance of obligation under that document, because until and unless the document is executed, no obligation arises under it.
A files a suit for recovery of possession against В alleging that he has purchased the land. В leads evidence that the deed of sale was not executed as yet. The fact is relevant
Rendering Highly Probable and Improbable
Under the second limb a fact which by itself or in combination with other facts make the existence and non-existence of the fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
The words “highly probable” indicate that the Court has to go by the prohibits of the circumstances as regards the existence or non-existence of fact in issue or relevant fact. It also indicates that the connection between the facts in issue and the collateral facts sought to be proved must be immediate as to render the co-existence of the two highly probable. Collateral facts can be admitted in evidence if they make the existence of the fact in issue highly probable or improbable.
It is well settled that it is not a mere reasonable probability but carries great weight in bringing the court to conclusion whether facts exist or not.
In order to make a collateral fact admissible, the collateral facts must be established by convincing evidence and when established these must afford a reasonable presumption as to matter in dispute.
When a person is charged with forging a particular document, evidence is afforded to prove that a number of documents apparently forged or held in readiness for the purpose of forgery were found in possession of the accused.
R vs. Prabhudas
It was held that in a charge of forgery, the evidence offered to prove that a number of documents apparently forged or held in readiness for the purpose of forgery found in possession of the accused is not admissible. This section renders inadmissible the evidence of one crime to prove the existence of another unconnected crime, even though it is cogent.
The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstance are such that the crime must have been committed either by А, В, С or D, every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by either В, С or D, is relevant
Facts Tending to Enable Court to Determine Amount of Damages [Sec. 12]
In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant. Under sec. 12, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, will be relevant in suits for damages.
Under this section the court can determine the amount of damages in an action based on contract or tort. In a suit for damages, the amount of damages must be a fact in issue. Thus the section lays down that evidence tending to determine, i.e., to increase or diminish damages is admissible. Sec. 55 of this Act lays down the conditions under which evidence of character may be given in civil cases to affect the amount of damages. Similarly sec. 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 also lays down the rule governing damages in actions in contract. In a suit for damages for a breach of contract of marriage, the evidence as to status of the defendant may be given for determination of the amount of damages.
Facts Relevant When Right Or Custom Is In Question [Sec. 13]
Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant under sec. 13:
1. Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;
2. Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
The question is whether A has a right to a fishery.
A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.
When any question as to the existence of any right or custom is in issue the
following facts under clause (a) and clause (b) are relevant: Clause (a) makes any transaction relevant, if it is a transaction
1. by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or
2. which was inconsistent with its existence.
Clause (b) makes an instance relevant if it the particular instance
1. in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized or exercised, or
2. in which its existence was, disputed, asserted or departed from
Under sec. 13, existence or non-existence of a right or a custom may be proved by
1. any transaction; or 2. any particular instance, as provided there under.
Only particular instances and not statements are relevant.
Relevancy of the Facts showing the existence of any state of mind body or bodily feeling (Section 14)
Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.
A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
Sec. 14 deals with the relevancy of facts showing the existence of a person’s
1. state of mind,
2. state of body, or
3. bodily feeling.
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession, to be stolen.
(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s which B knew to be ferocious. The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.
(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious. The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant, as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.
(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A towards B, is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in question. The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.
(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. The fact that at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.
(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor A’s defence is that B’s contract was with C. The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s own account, and not as agent for A.
(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found. The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the properly could not be found. The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith.
(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved.
(j ) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved as showing intention of the letters.
(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife. Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelly, are relevant facts.
(l) The question is, whether A’s death was caused by poison. Statements made by A during his illness are relevant facts
(m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an assurance on his life was effected. Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in question are relevant facts.
(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular carriage, is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages which he let to hire is irrelevant.
(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing his intention to shoot B. The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.
(p) A is tried for a crime. The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crime of that class is irrelevant
Facts Bearing on Question Whether Act was Accidental or Intentional [Sec. 15]
Sec. 15 deals with relevancy of a series of similar facts. This section is an application of the general rule laid down in sec. 14. It is merely a deduction from the more general provisions of sec. 14. The series of acts relevant under thisection shows a system.
Where it is uncertain whether an act was done with a guilty knowledge or intention, or whether it was innocent or accidental, proof that it formed one of a series of similar acts raises the presumption that the act in question and the others together forming a series, were done upon a system and were therefore not innocent or accidental.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
In illustration (a) the fact that the houses of the person insured against fire were successively burnt down on different occasions is relevant to prove that the incidents were not accidental but part of a design or plan.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to В a counterfeit rupee. The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B, was not accidental.
Under sec. 15, like under sec. 14, the prosecution may place evidence of criminal acts other than those charged, without waiting for the accused to set up a specific defence calling for rebuttal evidence. When the Act in question forms part of a series of similar occurrences, evidence of similar facts is admissible, to prove intention or knowledge of the person and to rebut the defence of accident, mistake, etc.
Admissions and Confessions under Indian Evidence Act
Admission are defined under section 17 of the as,
“An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.”
The definition makes it clear that an admission is statement in oral or written form including electronic forms like pen drives, disks, floppies suggesting an inference as to existence or non existence of any fact in issue or a relevant to the fact in issue.
As already defined above, admissions are statements that attach a liability, as inferred from the facts in issue or relevant facts, to the party who made such statements; the statement, denouncing any right, should be conclusive and clear, there should not be any doubt or ambiguity. This was held by the Supreme Court in Chikham Koteswara Rao v C Subbarao (AIR 1981 SC 1542). They are only prima facie proof and not conclusive proof.
Admissions can be either formal or informal. The formal admissions are also called judicial admissions made during the proceedings, while the latter is made during the normal course of life. Judicial admissions are admissible under Section 58, (facts admitted through pleadings need not be proved.) of the act and are substantive. They are a waiver of proof, that is, no further proof is needed to prove them unless the court asks the same.
The Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam explained the effect of it, stating that if admissions are true and clear, they are the best proof of the facts admitted. Through informal or casual admission, the act brings in every written or oral statement regarding the facts of the case (by the party), under admission.
A person’s conduct may also be taken as an admission. In an Australian case, Mayo v Mayo a woman registered the birth of her child but did not enter the name of the father or his profession. The court said that either she did not know who the father was or she was admitting that the child is illegitimate. In either case, there is an admission of adultery and an admissible evidence of adultery.
Admission is a statement of facts, asserting or denying them. Admissions are of two types:
1. Formal Admissions
2. Evidentiary Admissions
Formal admissions are admissions made in the proceedings of a case. They are often, made in the pleadings. They may also be made through the submissions of parties or their advocates.
Formal admissions are binding upon the parties and therefore, the facts so admitted need not be proved
On the other hand, evidentiary admissions are made outside the court before or while the case is pending in the court.
Statements of facts made by a person may be classified into two categories:
1. self serving statements;
2. self harming statements
A self-serving statement is one, which is beneficial to the person making it. A self harming statement is one, which is against the interest of the person making it.
As self-serving statement are beneficial to the maker, and therefore they are not reliable. Hence, they are not relevant except in certain circumstances.
On the other hand, self-harming statements are against the interest of the maker and therefore the courts readily believe them because a person will not make a statement against his interest unless it is true.
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 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.
Thus the admissions are the best evidence though its relevancy depends upon the conditions as mentioned in Sections 18 to 20.
Who can make admissions..?
Section 18, 19 and 20 lays down the persons who can make admissions. Sec 18 persons who are related to the suit or proceeding and Ss 19 and 20 relate to the third persons
Admission- by party to proceeding or his agent
Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
By suitor in representative character Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they are made while the party making them held that character.
(1) By party interested in subject-matter persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested,
(2) By person from whom interest derived- Persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
Sec 19 Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit"
Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.
Illustration: A under takes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent from A. A denies that rent was due form C to B. A statement by C that he owed rent to B is an admission, and is a relevant fact against A.
Section 20 of Evidence Act "Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit"
Statements made by persons to whom party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration: The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. A says to B “Go and ask C, he know all about it:”. C’s Statement is an admission
When Admissions can be proved by or behalf of the persons making them ( Sec 21)
Admissions are the best evidence as they always go against the person making them and relevant as long as they are against the interest of the person making them. But section 21 lays down an exception as to when the admissions may be proved by or on behalf of the person making them.
Sec 21 - 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:--
(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 32.
(2) An admission may by 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 on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
(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 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.
(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 mat 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 section 32, clause (2).
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore 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 section 32, clause (2).
(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 coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skillful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration
Admissions Made Upon Express Condition that Evidence of it is not to be Given ( Section 23)
Where the admission is made under an express or implied agreement that the evidence of the admission shall not be given in any civil case which may be instituted or which may be pending against the party making admission, such evidence of admission is barred by sec. 23.
Explanation to sec. 23 provides that nothing in sec. 23 shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under sec. 126.
Similarly, sec. 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excludes certain statements and admissions made by the parties to a conciliation proceeding from being proven in civil cases and arbitration proceedings.
Conclusiveness of Admissions
Sec. 31 makes it clear that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.