Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

42. In "Wigmore on Evidence" (Vol IV para 1051) it has been observed :

"An admission is logically useful against the party in the same way as a prior self-contradiction against a witness, and its admissibility rests partly on that ground. It follows that certain deductions from this principle have a parallel application to the present sort of evidence, notably in respect to implied admissions, and to explanations of the admissions. But there are two respects in which the distinction between a witness' self-contradictions and a party's admissions becomes important.

2. Intention of producing evidence under Section 145 differs from that of evidence under Section 21.

The second portion of Section 145 which is relevant for our purposes clearly lays down that the evidence contemplated by it "is intended to contradict" the witness. It is, therefore, evident that Section 145 refers only to such evidence as is adduced solely with the intention of contradicting a particular witness who is in the witness-box.

On the other hand, admission evidence is not intended to contradict any particular witness. It is filed with the intention of contradicting the case of a party i.e. the opponent's case. The case of a party consists of the entire pleadings and evidence of the party. A self-contradiction of a mere witness, therefore, stands on a footing quite different from the self-contradiction of a party; for, as stated by Wigmore in his book on Evidence, Vol. IV, (Edn. 3) para. 1048 at p. 3.

The effect of adducing this evidence is merely to cast a suspicion on the reliability of the witness. Such evidence has no effect on the truth or otherwise of the facts stated. The utmost that it may show is that the witness is capable of erring in his testimony through bias, dishonesty, slip of memory or in other words, suffer from what is termed as "a defect either in the memory or in the honesty." The effect thus produced is an indefinite one. The end thus attained has been aptly described as "some undefined capacity to err." The following passage from Wigmore, Vol III (Edn. 3) para. 1018, p. 687 is relevant in this connection :--

77a. The statement of law on the point contained in the 'Wigmore on evidence' is to the same effect. In the said book, in reference to the rule of confrontation requiring preliminary warning which is applicable to a witness, it is stated as follows :

"The rule applies only to the discrediting of a witness, and not to the use of a 'party's admis sions', whether or not he is also a witness." (Wigmore, Vol. 3, para 1039, p. 725) 3rd Edn.

78. In Cockle's Cases and Statutes on Evidence (Edn. 6) with reference to the case of 'Slatterie v. Pooley', (D) it is stated at p. 196 that "Admissions are considered primary evidence against a party, and they are admissible to prove even the contents of written documents, without notice to produce, or accounting for the absence of, the originals."