COMPARISON BETWEEN CONFESSION AND

ADMISSION

5-Law-26 MYAT THURA HEIN

5-Law-27 THANT LWIN MAUNG
5-Law-28 SITHU MG MG
5-Law-29 YE KHANT KYAW
5-Law-30 AUNG PHYO HEIN

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF YANGON
MYANMAR

This Term Paper is the Partial Requirement for LL.B. Degree.

SEPTEMBER 2018
 Introduction

Admission and confession are two very important concepts used in law of
evidence by lawyers to strengthen their cases in the eyes of the judge. Both
admissions and confessions are used as sources of evidence. The comparison between
confession and admission is to be regarded as important in Evidence Law as, it will
give the explanation as to a statement’s admissibility in a court of law as per Evidence
Act, 1872.
If the statement is found to be an admission, it will be admissible under
Section 21 and if it amounts to a confession, it will be admissible under Section 24 to
30. If it is found to be holding improper inducement, threat or promise, it would be hit
by the restriction in Section 24 and will not be admissible as a confession anymore,
but, it may still be admissible under Section 21 as an admission provided that it
suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or a relevant fact. A restriction on
admissibility of an admission is laid down that it will not be made to a police officer
during an ongoing investigation. Also, a statement made by an accused, if a
confession, can be used against his co-accused and if it is proven to be just an
admission, it cannot be used against the said co-accused but shall be admissible
against the maker.

The matter of research is collected from the secondary sources which include
the legal documents, the statutes, the judicial decisions, the articles, books, journals,
etc. as collected from the Library and authentic websites. The concepts of Admissions
and Confessions as a statement are vast and can span into the lengths of books. Thus,
the present research will aim to limit the scope of dwelling into the concepts of
Admissions and Confessions and will concentrate efforts upon the comparison
between the two.
 Comparison between Confession and Admission

CONTENTS

Introduction

Page

Chapter 1 Confession 1

1.1 Meaning of Confession 1

1.2 Types of Confession 1

1.3 Inadmissible Confession 2

1.4 Admissible Confession 5

Chapter 2 Admission 10

2.1 Definition of Admission 10

2.2 Person who can make admission 10

2.3 Methods to prove admission 12

2.4 Oral admissions 15

Chapter 3 Differences and Similarities between

Confession and Admission 17
3.1 Differences between Confession and Admission 17

3.1.1 Differences based on Eminent England Judges 17

3.1.2 Differences based on Character of the Evidence 17

3.1.3 Basic Distinctions between Confession and Admission 18

3.1.4 Differences based on Procedures 20

3.2 Similarities between Confession and Admission 26
Conclusion

References
 1

Chapter 1

Confession
1.1 Meaning of Confession
There is no definition of confession in the Evidence Act. “Confession is
made” means that “the accused declared that he committed crime”. It can affect the
person who makes it, as well as the co-accused.
A confession must either admit in terms of the offence, or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fat is not of itself a confession. 1
Sir Arthur Eggar stated that “A confession is an admission by a person that he
committed a crime. Mere admissions of incriminating facts do not amount to
confessions unless those facts, together with the inferences which must necessarily be

1
Tan Chit Lye (a) Tet Shin (a) Maw Pein V. The Union of Burma, [(1950) B.L.R. 172].
 2

drawn these from are sufficient to prove the offence.” Confession is therefore a form
of admission.2
The laws dealing with confession are contained in Sections 24 to 30 of the
Evidence Act 1989. Confessions are received in evidence in criminal cases upon the
same principle on which admissions are received in civil cases, namely, the
presumption that a person will not make an untrue statement against his own interest.
Thus, confessions are merely species of admission. Law is clear that a confession
cannot be used against an accused person unless the court is satisfied that it is
voluntary.

1.2 Types of Confession

Confession is generally divided into two kinds- judicial confession and extra-
judicial confession. Not every confession is admissible.
Judicial confessions are those which are made before the Court in due course
of legal proceedings and recorded by magistrate. It is the best proof that the accused is
guilty if the Court thinks it is given voluntarily and being true.
Extra-judicial confession is made before police or any person other than
judges and magistrates, which are legally authorized to take confession. Extra-judicial
confession is relatively weak evidence. It is necessary to be clear and consistent in
order to be reliable piece of evidence. It is not sound enough to make conviction.
Therefore, it needs other supporting evidences which can corroborate its description
and increase its evidential value, in order to be ground of conviction. It may be oral or
in writing. Written confession is the best evidence.
A confession is presumed as a retracted confession when the accused person
makes a statement in which he concedes the guilt of offence before the trial starts, but
later he repudiates it on the reason of torture of police or some incidents which
invokes involuntary disclosing.
In order to convict the accused based on the retracted confession, other
corroborated testimony is necessary in criminal cases.3

1.3 Inadmissible Confession

“A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal
proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been accused

2
Sir Arthur Eggar, Law of the Evidence.
3
Maung Than V. The Union of Myanmar [(1973) B.L.R. 24].
 3

by inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused
person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the
Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for
supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.”4
This section prescribes when a confession made by an accused person is
inadmissible. This confession cannot be used as evidence if it is made under these
circumstances; -

(1) When the court appears that confession was caused by inducement, threat, or
promise;
(2) When those conducts mentioned above are made by a person in authority;
(3) When the accused thinks that he would get benefit or escape from evil of the
temporal nature by making those conducts mentioned above.
Therefore, a confession given voluntarily and truthfully is admissible and the
court will consider it when it makes decision.

In the case of Maung Tin Shwe V. Union of Myanmar 5, the appellant Tin
Shwe had been subjected to ill-treatments. So, he had given the confession
involuntarily. Since there is no evidence against him other than his own confession
which is inadmissible in evidence, there is no other alternative but to direct his
acquittal. Under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, confession would not be relevant if
the making of confession appears to the court to have been caused by inducement,
threat, etc.
According to Section 28, if such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is
made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in
the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.
With reference to above paragraph, section 28 is a proviso to section 24. The
purpose of removing the impression that the confession was made due to inducement,
threat or promise is to get free and voluntary confession. In evaluating such a matter
as to whether there is inducement or not, it needs to consider nature of the case, time
and circumstances, and position of person making the confession. Therefore, the

4
Section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872.
5
[(1960) B.L.R. 125].
 4

confessional statement can be admissible evidence when the Court satisfied that the
inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed.
“No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence.”6 Section 25 states that a confession made by the accused to a
police officer while he is in custody of the police officer is inadmissible and cannot be
proved.
In the case of Sobika Rahman (Appellant) vs. The Union of Myanmar 7 , the
appellant was convicted under section 5(1) of the Control of Imports and Exports
(Temporary) (Amendment) Act, 1947 and was sentenced to four months with rigorous
imprisonment.
The appellant was alleged of the admission that he was the person in
possession of the bundle containing the exhibit carpets which he had brought this
bundle from the streamer midstream, there was no evidence whatsoever to connect
him with the crime of having imported the goods without the license. The appellant
earned his living by selling betel leaves in the tea shop. When the police made the raid
there were many other persons besides the appellant, so that it will be impossible to
say who was actually in possession of the bundle seized by the police.
In the present case, the appellant was alleged to have admitted to the police
that he was the man in possession of the bundle containing the carpets and that he had
brought this bundle from the streamer midstream. This is the confession because, if
true, it admits a substantial portion of the facts which constitute the offence with
which the appellant had been charged.
It was held that a statement which admits a substantial portion of the facts
which constitute the offence with which the appellant was charged is a confession and
having been made to the Police is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the
Evidence Act. So, he was acquitted.
When a confession is recorded, the confession must be taken in writing in
open court during trial, and the competent judge can record a confession in writing 8.
Sections 164, 364 and 533 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribe the procedures
how to record a confession in writing. Articles 602, 603 and 604 of the Courts Manual
66
Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872.
7
[(1952) B.L.R. 385].
8
Section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

8
 5

state of the steps of recording a confession. Confession recorded properly in

accordance with these procedures is admissible.
“Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a
record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a
witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such
evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken
in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by
any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume, that the document is genuine;
that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be
made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or
confession was duly taken.”9 If the confession is recorded accordingly and signed by
the Judge, it may be presumed as a proper record. Consequently, this confession can
be considered by the Court as admissible evidence.
In the case of Tun Kha vs. the Government 10, it was held that where a
confession has been recorded by a 2nd class Magistrate who has not been empowered
by the Government to record confessions, such confession is not admissible in
evidence. The Magistrate cannot give oral evidence of the confession.
Section 26 describes of extra-judicial confession as follows:
“No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-
officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved
as against such person.”
Therefore, a confession made in police custody is not admissible unless it is
made in the presence of a magistrate. The presence of the magistrate prevents abuse
of powers by the police and secures voluntary confession from undue influence.
In respect of “custody”, as soon as an accused or suspected person comes into
the hand of a police officer, he is in the absence of clear and unmistakable evidence to
the contrary and no longer at liberty and is therefore in custody within the meaning of
Sections 26 and 27, Evidence Act.11
Hence, there are two ingredients to constitute custody. The first one is that the
accused person making the confession cannot go anywhere as he wishes, that is, he is
put under the control. The second one is that such control is caused by some police-

9
Section 80 of the Evidence Act 1872.
10
[(1948) B.L.R. 49].
11
Maung Lay and six V. Union of Myanmar, [1 Ran 609].
 6

officer directly or indirectly. It implies that the accused is still in custody of police-
officer even if the police stays outside or leaves him in the locked room or puts him in
the custody of another police-officer.
Confession made to a police officer and that made in police custody are extra-
judicial kinds of confessions and they are not admissible. Another extra-judicial
confession is one which is made to any third person neither to police officer, nor in
custody and not to magistrate.

1.4 Admissible Confession

Section 27 states how much of information should be considered as proof
against the accused person as follows.
“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.”
Fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly
to this fact.12
Therefore, if any information from the accused person leads to discovery of
any fact related to the offence committed, the information can be guaranteed as truth.
It may be proved against the accused person because the fact discovered corroborates
the intensity of confession made by him. If there is no relationship between the fact
discovered and the committed offence, it is no longer the question as to whether the
accused person is guilty of offence with regard to that particular information.
Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Notwithstanding a confession
made to police-officer or in police custody, it is admissible if the fact discovered can
afford guarantee the truth of the information of the accused person.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is as statements alleged to have been made by
the appellant are statements which accompanied the discovery of the bundle
containing the contraband and did not lead to its discovery.13 Persons in custody may

12
Ratanlal Ranchhoddas and Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, 1938, The Law of Evidence (third edition)
Pg-71.
13
Sobika Rahman V. The Union of Burma [(1952) B.L.R. 385].
 7

point out the objects to a magistrate or searcher, but the statement which accompanies
the discovery of such objects are not admissible in evidence.14
Section 29 expresses that “if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does
not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in
consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of
obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions
which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those
questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such
confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.”
Confession is still relevant although it is made under promise of secrecy, or
deception, or when the accused was drunk, or when the accused was not warned that
he was not bound to make it. Before applying this section, the confession needs to
comply with section 24, 26 and 28.
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and
a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against
such other persons as well as against the person who makes confession.15
So, there is something different that proved confession of one person affecting
himself and some other of such persons is taken into consideration by the court when
such persons are being tried jointly for the same offence but when such persons are
not being tried jointly for the same offence, the statement may not be considered for
all.
The time when all the accused persons are being tried jointly in the same trial
for the same offence is expressed in Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.
If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate
thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless,
he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.16

14
Tha Nge Gyi and Maung Mya V. The King [(1946) R.L.R. 229].
15
Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872.
16
Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.
 8

According to Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused more than
one are tried jointly in the same trial and the confession made by one accused is taken
into consideration as a supporting evidence for all accused by the court but not used
the substantial evidence to make a conviction.
However, testimony of an accomplice can serve as a material thing for
conviction even without supporting evidence.
An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, and a
conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice.17
In the case of Khaw Taw and one vs The Union of Burma 18, it was held that
confession of a co-accused is not specific evidence in the sense that conviction on that
confession alone cannot stand. If there is other relevant evidence tending to prove the
guilt of the accused, the confession of the co-accused may be taken into consideration
along with the said evidence as tending assurance to it. But, if there is no other
evidence or if the other evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case against
the accused, the confession of the co-accused must be excluded altogether and cannot
be taken into consideration. The confession of the co-accused cannot be added to
supplement evidence otherwise insufficient and in no case can it be used to fill gaps in
the prosecution evidence. The confession of a co-accused is therefore not on the same
footing as the testimony of an approver which is substantial evidence and on which
alone conviction can be made under Section 133 of the Evidence Act.
There are two different ways to take into consideration of the confession of the
dead person. The first is that the accused person who made the confession is dead and
so he cannot be tried together with the other accused person in the same trial by the
court. For the above reason, the confession of the dead person may not be taken into
consideration. The second is that the confession of the dead person is used to other
accused person according to Section 32 (3) of the Evidence Act. Statements, written
or verbal, of relevant facts made by person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or
who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be
procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the
case appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts.19

17
Section 133 of Evidence Act 1872.
18
[(1948) B.L.R. 310].
19
 9

In Myanmar, it is the second one that is mostly used.

In the case of Maung Shin and two others Vs the Union of Burma 20, it was
held that the confession of an accused person who is dead implicating himself and an
accomplice in a crime is admissible under s. 32(3) of the Evidence Act and is not
excluded by illustration (b) to s 30. But where the alleged confession does not expose
the confessor to a criminal prosecution though it may contain “admission of a gravity
incriminating fact or even a conclusively incriminating fact”, it is not a confession.
In the case of Maung Thar Hlaing Vs Union of Myanmar21, the court takes into
consideration not only one part of the confession but also takes into consideration the
whole part of the confession.
In the case of murder, if the court takes into consideration of the statement of
the accused person that he killed one person, it may also take into consideration the
fact of the accused person which is ‘the dead person had an intention to beat him’.
The lower court held that the accused person Maung Thar Hlaing was
sentenced to imprisonment for a life according to Section 302 (2) of Criminal
Procedure Code. So, he made an appeal.
In this case, the accused person Maung Thar Hlaing said ‘he had a dispute
with the dead person. At first, the latter beat him and he was injured. At the time the
latter made another one beat him, he stabbed him two times with a knife.
Therefore, the court shall take into consideration the whole part of the
confession to make conviction.
So, the higher court rejects the decision of the lower court, and the court held
that Maung Thar Hlaing was liable to imprisonment for a term of 7 years according to
Section 304 of Criminal Procedure Code.

20
[(1948) B.L.R. 425].
21
[(1964) B.L.R. 729].

21
 10

Chapter 2

Admission

2.1 Definition of Admission

The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the
existence or truth of a particular fact". But in the Evidence Act 1872, the term
'admission' has not been used in this wider sense.  It deals with admissions by
statements only oral or written. Admission plays a very important role in judicial
proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other proceeding proves that the other
party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission must be
clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous. 
According to Section 17 of Evidence Act 1872, an admission is a statement,
oral or documentary 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.

Section 17 points three things. It first defines “admission”, in terms of a

statement which may be oral or documentary or in electronic form. Secondly, the
 11

section says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person
specified in the Act. The list is to be found in Sections 18, 19 and 20. Thirdly, the
section says that it will be relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act.
Some of circumstances are mentioned in sections 18-23.

2.2 Person who can make admission

In determining which kind of people can make admission in a case, sections
18, 19 and 20 of Evidence Act 1872 can referred.
Statements made by a 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.22
Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character
are not admissions unless they were made while the party making them held that
character.
Statements made by-

(1) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-
matter of the proceeding, and who made the statement in their character of
persons so interested, or
(2) 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 or the interest of the
persons making the statements.
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 liability23.
In the case of U Pway v. U Htun Sein and 9 24, the statement made by
respondent no.2 is inadmissible because it is against his position or liability necessary
to prove as against the appellant.

22
Section 18 of Evidence Act 1872.
23
Section 19 of Evidence Act 1872.
24
[(1958) B.L.R 528.
 12

Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred
for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.25

According to above three sections, persons who can, make admission are-

(i) A party to the proceeding

A party, who was also a party to the case before, made admissions and
his admission will be admissible whether the parties are the same or
not.
In PD Pataye V. the Government, it was held that, if a party who was
witness for the case before and his admission in that case will be
admissible when that admission is a fact in issue or relevant fact in this
case in which he is a party.26
(ii) An agent to such a party
Agent’s admission must be an act which is in his authority. If not,
statement will not be admissible when that is beyond his authority.
(iii) A party suing or sued in a representative character; (For example –
Trustee, Administrator)
Representative party means a party suing or sued in a representative
character as a plaintiff, a defendant, a person or an organization, for
instance, such as trustee, executor, administrator, etc. Also, an
admission must be an act made as a representative party, not a person.
(iv) A person from whom the parties have derived their subject matter or the
suit during the continuance of such interest (S. 18);
(v) A person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such statement
would be relevant in a suit brought by or against him; and
(vi) A person expressly referred for information in reference by a party to the
suit.

2.3 Method to prove admission

According to Section 21 of Evidence Act 1872, 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:
25
Section 20 of Evidence Act 1872.
26
PD Pataye V. the Government (AIR 1933 Rangoon 292).
 13

(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 be proved by or on behalf of the person making it,
when it consists of a statement or 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.

This section 21 lays down the principles as to proof of admissions. The section
is based upon the principle that an admission is evidence against the party who has
made the admission and, therefore, it can be proved against him. He himself cannot
prove his own statements, “otherwise every man, if he were in a difficulty, or in view
of one, might make declarations to suit his own case”, and then lodge them in proof of
his case. The general rule is that “the statements of a living person cannot be received
unless they are against his interest.” No man should be at liberty to make evidence for
himself through his own statements. Granted this facility, every litigant would
construct a favourable case by his own statement.
The principle is, however, subject to important exceptions. In these
exceptional cases a party is permitted to prove his own statements. Some of them may
be mentioned here.

(a) When the statement should have been relevant as Dying Declaration or as that
of a deceased person under S. 32.
Section 32 deals with the statement of persons who have died or who
otherwise cannot come before the court.27 The statement of any such person can be
proved in any case or proceeding to which it is relevant whether it operates in favour
or against the person making the statement. In circumstances stated in Sec. 32, such a
statement can be proved by the maker himself if he is still alive. The exception is thus
stated in S. 21(1). An admission may be proved by or behalf of the person making it,

27
Section 32 of Evidence Act 1872.
 14

when it is of such a nature that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant
as between third persons under Sec. 32. Illustration (b) is on the point.

(b) Statements as to bodily feeling or state of mind

The second exception is contained in S.21(2). It deals with statements as to
body, bodily feeling or state of mind. The subsection enables a person to prove his
statements as to his state of body or of mind. If, for example a person is injured and
the question is whether the injury was intentional or accidental, his statement at that
time as to the way he was injured can be proved by himself. The conditions for the
admissibility of such statements are, firstly that the statement should have been made
at about the time when the state of mind of body which is described by the statement
still existed. The statement should be contemporaneous with the existence of the
condition of mind or of body. A person is the least likely to fabricate a statement
when he is still reeling under the pain of the injury. And secondly, the statement
should be accompanied by conduct which renders the falsehood of the statement
improbable.
Thus, to reassure that the statement is really true, the Legislature insist that the
statement should be accompanied by such conduct as shows that the condition of
mind or of body described by the statement is really true and not feigned. The conduct
of a person under real pain is different from that of a person who is only acting as
such. The accompanying conduct is a greater guarantee of truth than the statements.28

(c) When otherwise relevant

The last exception is that a person may prove his own statement when it is
otherwise relevant under any of the provisions relating to relevancy. A statement may
be relevant either as an admission of relevant fact or as a proof of the existence of a
fact. There are many cases in which a statement is relevant not because it is an
admission but because it establishes the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact
or a fact in issue. In all such cases a party can prove his own-statements.
For example, a party may prove his own statement under section-6 of
Evidence Act 1872 if it is a part of the same transaction. The doctrine of res gestae29
covers such statements. A statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person
28
Jagwant Singh vs. Sitam Singh ILR 21 ALL.
29
Secondhand statements considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence in a lawsuit
when repeated by a witness because they were made spontaneously and concurrently with an event.
 15

making it under Section 8 if it accompanies or explains acts other than statements or if

it influenced the conduct of a person whose conduct is relevant. A statement may be
proved by or on behalf of the person making it under Section 14 if the statement
explains his state of mind or body or bodily feeling when any such thing is relevant or
is in issue. A statement may be proved on behalf of the person making it if it is
relevant under any of the clauses of Section 32.
In Li Yong Hong Sai Vs. Li Yong Aphone (Vol 7. Rangoon 720), if what
religion does a person have is a fact in issue, an important document such as a will
which states what religion he has is a valuable admission according to section 11(2),
14 and 21(2) under this Act.30

2.4 Oral Admissions

According to section 22 of Evidence Act 1872, oral admissions as to the
contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove
them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such
document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a
document produced is in question.
Section 22 lays down that the contents of the documents can be proved by the
documents itself and not by oral evidence. The contents of a document capable of
being produced must be proved by the instrument and not by parole evidence.
Under the provisions of the Evidence Act the contents of the documents are
proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. According to Section
64, the document must be proved by primary evidence, i.e., by producing the
document itself.31 In absence of primary evidence it can be proved by secondary
evidence under section 65. Section 22, accordingly, states that oral evidence as to the
contents of a document will be relevant only when the secondary evidence of the
document can be given under this section.32
An admission does not constitute a conclusive proof of the fact admitted. It is
only prima facie proof and proving contrary is allowed. An admission being not
conclusive proof of the fact admitted, evidence can be given to disprove it. But until
evidence to the contrary is given, admission can safely be presumed to be proved.
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as

30
Li Yong Hong Sai Vs. Li Yong Aphone (Vol 7. Rangoon 720).
31
Section 64 of Evidence Act 1872.
32
Section 22 of Evidence Act 1872.
 16

estoppel under the provision of this Act. 33 An admission operates as an estoppel, the
party admitting the fact will not be allowed to go against the fact admitting under
section 115 of this Act.
An admission is the best evidence against the party making the same unless it
is untrue and made under the circumstances, which does not make it binding on him.
Admission by a party is substantive evidence of the facts admitted by him.
Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party
making the admission appeared in the Witness box or not.34 In fact, admission is best
substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon it. The evidentiary value of
admission only by government is merely relevant and not conclusive, unless the party
to whom they are made has acted upon and thus altered his detriment.35

33
Section 31 of Evidence Act 1872.
34
Paciocco, David M., and Lee Stuesser. The law of evidence. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2005.
35
Polak, A. Laurence. "Admissions and Confessions." The Police Journal 35, no. 3 (1962): P-204.
 17

Chapter 3

Differences and Similarities between Confession and Admission

3.1 Differences between Confession and Admission

3.1.1 Differences based on Eminent England Judges
There are some eminent England Judges’ comments regarding distinction
between confession and admission.
George Sutherland mentioned in the case John, Richard v. Collins36 that one of
the effective tests distinguishing a confession from an admission is that where
conviction can be based on the statement alone, it is a confession and where some
supplementary evidence is needed to authorize a conviction, then, it is an admission.

36
[(1960) Q.B 107].
 18

Frederick Pollock commented regarding with confession and admission that in

criminal cases a statement by accused, not amounting to confession but giving rise to
inference that the accused might have committed the crime is his admission.
Charles Bowen commented that an admission represents a statement that tends
toward proving guilt. On the other hand, a confession is a fully corroborated statement
during which the suspect accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime.

3.1.2 Differences based on Character of the Evidence

The main distinction between a confession and an admission is not based upon
a technical refinement but instead; it is based upon the substantive differences of the
character of the evidence deduced from each. In other words, a confession is a direct
acknowledgement of guilt, on the part of the accused, and by the very definition of it,
excludes an admission which of itself is a statement, oral or documentary that enables
the court to gather an inference as to any relevant fact or fact in issue.37
According to the established theories and law, all admissions are not
confessions but all confessions are admissions. Though only voluntary and direct
acknowledgment of guilt is a confession, but when a confession falls short of actual
admission of guilt, and is not taken down according to law, it may be used as evidence
against the person who made it, as an admission under Section 21.38

3.1.3 Basic distinctions between Confession and Admission

1. Admission is a matter of civil suit and criminal proceeding but confession is
only a matter of criminal case.
2. Confession is acceptance of guilt in a crime or wrongdoing while admission is
the acknowledgement of a statement or a fact.
3. Judicial Magistrates take the confession but they have no power to take
admission as they have no jurisdiction over the civil suit.39
4. All confessions may be recognized as admissions but not all admissions are
confessions.
5. An admission may be made from any of the party of the suit but a confession
must be made by accused.

37
Amīr ʻAlī, Maulawī, Syed Ameer Ali, and J. G. Woodroffe. The Law of Evidence Applicable to
British India. Thacker, Spink, 1907).
38
R. v. Nilmadhab [(1888) 15 Cal. 595 (F.B.)].
39
Inbau, Fred E. "Law and police practice: restrictions in the law of interrogation and confessions." J.
Crim. L. & Criminology 89 (1998): 1393.
 19

6. Admission is taken according to the procedure stated in Code of Civil

Procedure 1909 whereas Confession is taken according to the procedure stated
in section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. 
7. Confession of guilt by an accused person to a police officer cannot be proved
in criminal proceeding where admission of guilt by a person to a police officer
may be proved in civil proceeding.40
8. An accused can retract from confession made earlier, but retraction from
admission is not possible.41
9. Confession given freely can be treated as a conclusive proof of guilt but
admission related with the fact in issue or relevant fact; it is not a conclusive
proof of evidence.
10. A confession always goes against the person making it, except under section
30, under which the confession of one or more accused jointly tried for the
offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. An admission,
on the contrary, may be used on behalf of the person making it under the
exceptions provided in Sec. 21; but an admission by one of several defendants
in a suit is no evidence against another defendant.42

3.1.4 Differences based on Procedures

Admission is taken according to the procedure stated in Code of Civil
Procedure 1909 whereas Confession is taken according to the procedure stated in Code
of Criminal Procedure 1898. 
The following is the procedure regarding with taking a confession.
A confession should be recorded in open court and during court hours.43
Judge who is empowered may record confession made to him during
investigation or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or
trial.44 In case any court finds that the judge recording the confession has not complied

40
Kassin, Saul M. "The psychology of confession evidence." American Psychologist 52, no. 3 (1997):
221.
41
Kassin, Saul M., and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. "Confession evidence." The psychology of evidence
and trial procedure (1985): 67-94.
42
Polak, A. Laurence. "Admissions and Confessions." The Police Journal 35, no. 3 (1962): 204-207.
43
Article 602(1) of Burma Court Manual.
44
Section 164(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
 20

with sections 164 or 364, it shall take the evidence the such person duly made the
statement recorded.45
Before recording confession, the judge must warn the person who is about to
make confession that he is not bound to do so, and that, if he does so, it may be used
as evidence against him.46
The judge must ensure that confession was made voluntarily. 47 Before
recording the confession, he should the accused person a few hours and put him in
circumstances under which the police cannot influence at all.48
Only if the accused desires to make a confession, the judge must record it.
During recording the confession, no police who conducted the arrest of the accused
person or the investigation of the case should be allowed to be within sight or hearing
of the accused. However, some other police are necessary in order to secure the safe
custody of the accused person.49
Each question and answer should be recorded separately.50
The whole of examination including every question and every answer must be
recorded in full, in the language in which the accused is examined, or in Myanmar
language.51
The accused person should not be cross-examined. The judge should use his
best endeavor to obtain detailed relevant statement disclosed by the accused.52
The record must be shown or read to the accused person till he understands.
He may explain or add to his answers.53
The record must be signed and certified as true by the accused person and the
judge, and the judge must guarantee that the accused had been examined in his
presence and the record contains complete statement made by the accused.54
The judge must make a memorandum at the foot of the record to the following
effect:

45
Section 533(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
46
Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
47
Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
48
Article 602(3) of Burma Court Manual.
49
Article 602(5) of Burma Court Manual.
50
Article 604(2) of Burma Court Manual.
51
Section 364(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
52
Article 602(4) of Burma Court Manual.
53
Section 364(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
54
Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1909.
 21

“I have explained to (name of the accused) that he is not bound to make a

confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as
evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was
taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and
admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement
made by him.
(Signed) A.B.,
Magistrate.”55
If the confession is recorded in accordance with law, it is competent to be
admitted to the court as admissible evidence under section 80 of the Evidence Act.
The following is procedures regarding with taking admission.
The admission need not be proved unless the court otherwise is of the opinion
or requires the same to be proved.
Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary
implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be
taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: provided that the
Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than
by such admission.56
Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to
pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against
a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact
to be proved. 57
In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule
(2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or
has, engaged a pleader.58
Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn
up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the
judgment was pronounced.59
No doubt, according to this, if the defendant does not make denial of the
admissions, then the court will take such facts as pleaded in the plaint to be admitted.

55
Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
56
Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
57
Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
58
Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
59
Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
 22

However, the court has been left with the discretion to require the facts to be proved
even if these are admitted or if the party does not deny such facts. However, it has
been made clear under sub-section (4) that if the court pronounces judgment over
admitted facts, then the court would pass a decree.
Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the
application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the
determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. Whenever a judgment
is pronounced under sub- rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the
judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.60
Relief under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is
discretionary in nature. It also confers the court with wide discretion to decree the suit
and it is not bound to pass decree in a proper and reasonable case and can call for the
evidence before passing the decree. Where the averments made in the written
statement gave rise to the trivial issues, the judgment on admission under Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC cannot be passed. In case R.K. Markan vs. Rajiv Kumar Markan61,
Delhi, wherein it was observed as under: -
“For passing a decree on the basis of admission of the defendants in the
pleadings, law is well settled that the admission has to be unequivocal and unqualified
and the admission in the written statement should also be taken as a whole and not in
part....”
Questions of fact or law may be agreement be stated in the form of issues -
Where the parties to a suit are agreed as to the question of fact or of law to be decided
between them, they may state the same in the form of an issue, and enter into an
agreement in writing that, upon the finding of the court in the affirmative or the
negative of such issue,-- (a) a sum of money specified in the agreement or to be
ascertained by the court, or in such manner as the court may direct, shall be paid by
one of the parties to the other of them, or that one of them be declared entitled to
some right or subject to some liability specified in the agreement; (b) some property
specified in the agreement and in dispute in the suit shall be delivered by one of the
parties to the other of them, or as that other may direct; or (c) one or more of the

60
Rule 6 of Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
61
[(2003) AIHC 632 (633)].
 23

parties shall do or abstain from doing some particular act specified in the agreement
and relating to the matter in dispute.62
Rule 6 of Order XIV of the CPC deals with the issue where the parties agree
on some issues of fact or law. If the parties agree and limit the question of fact or law
to be decided between them, they may state the same in the form of issues and enter
into an agreement in writing that, upon findings of the court, negative or affirmative,
on such issues, the court would ascertain the right of the parties. Some property
specified in the agreement and in dispute in the suit shall be delivered by one of the
parties to the other of them or as that other may direct; or one or more of the parties
shall do or abstain from doing some particular act specified in the agreement and
relating to the matter in dispute.
Court, if satisfied that agreement was executed in good faith, may pronounce
judgment - Where the court is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it deems proper,-
that the agreement was duly executed by the parties, that they have a substantial
interest in the decision of such question as aforesaid, and that the same is fit to be
tried and decided, it shall proceed to record and try the issue and state its finding or
decision thereon in the same manner as if the issue had been framed by the court, and
shall, upon the finding or decision on such issue, pronounce judgment according to
the terms of the agreement; and, upon the judgment so pronounced, a decree shall
follow.63
Admissions before the same are relied upon; it should be clear, unequivocal,
and categorical and should not be vague and conditional. In case Himani Alloys Ltd.
vs. Tata Steel Ltd.,64 wherein it was observed as under:
“It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the
minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a
conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound
by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor
peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and
circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment
on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the
defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear,

62
Order XIV Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1898.
63
Order XIV Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1898.
64
2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 721.
 24

unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to
deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion
should be used only when there is a clear „admission‟ which can be acted upon.”
The Apex Court in Naghubai Ammal's case 65, further observed as
“18. An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matter stated therein.
It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the
circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue, so
long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it is his detriment, when it
might become conclusive by way of estoppel. In the present case, there is no question
of estoppel, as the title of Dr. Nanjunda Rao arose under a purchase which was long
prior to the admission made in 1932 and in the subsequent years. It is argued for the
appellants that these admissions at the least shifted the burden on the plaintiff of
proving that the proceedings were not collusive, and that as he gave no evidence
worth the name that these statements were made under a mistake or for a purpose and
were, in fact, not true, full effect must be given to them.
However, the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, Order VIII Rules 5 and 10 of the
CPC are meant for commercial transactions and not otherwise where the claim is
based on such documents which need proof. It is also settled that normally admissions
on the Will, gift, sale or co-parcenary can be proved to be erroneous and cannot be
treated as proved on the basis of such admissions. Similarly, if the property is alleged
to be co-parcenary, the admissions in this regard is not sufficient to treat it as co-
parcenary as the question of co-parcenary is a matter of fact to be proved on evidence.
However, when the case is regarding commercial transactions, admission in a notice,
minutes of meetings, resolutions passed by the Board of Directors, pleadings or other
admission of signatures, then such admissions could be accepted and made the basis
of the decree.
Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Uttam Singh Dugal and Co.
Ltd. vs. United Bank of India66 wherein it was observed as under: -
“As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say anything more than
what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the
objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that where a
claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to

65
[ AIR (1956) SC 593].
66
2000 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 89.
 25

pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain
a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the
admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. We should not unduly narrow
down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy
judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to
succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the
face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”
Though the party can press for judgment on admissions as a matter of legal
right on an admission made by the party. However, provisions of Order XII Rule 6 as
well as Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC, are enabling provisions conferring the court
discretionary power to pass a decree over the same or call the parties for evidence to
prove the fact or claim as raised by the plaintiff.

The procedures for taking confession and admission are vastly different. As
confession is the conclusive proof of a proceeding, the procedure is separated from
the normal proceeding. However, for admission which is the proof for facts in issues
or relevant facts of the case, the procedure for it to be taken is closely related to the
normal procedure of the suit or proceeding. Moreover, regarding with confession, the
court has no discretion to decide over a confession which is taken in accordance with
the rules. In admission, the court has been given discretion to judge whether the facts
are admitted or not and whether the admission is admissible or not. The procedure
regarding the admission in the Code of Civil Procedure mostly concerns with the
judgment of the court over the admission not like the confession which procedure
mostly deals with the limitations over how to take confession.

3.2 Similarities between Confession and Admission

A confession is an acknowledgement in express terms by a party in a criminal

case of his guilt. Thus defined, a confession implies an admission of every essential
element necessary to establish the crime with which the defendant is charged. An
admission is something less. It is a statement of facts pertinent to the issue from which
guilt may be inferred and which tends toward proof of the ultimate fact of guilt.

An admission represents a statement that tends toward proving guilt. On the

other hand, a confession is a fully corroborated statement during which the suspect
accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime. Even though it seems similar,
 26

there are not many similarities between confession and admission. They are vastly
different from each other. Here are similarities that can be found between them. They
are both statement that concerns with proving guilt. They are important types of
evidence concepts. To sum up, it can be said that the admission has a wider scope
than confession. Confession can be said to be a type of admission.
Research has been done regarding with the cases and law reviews. However,
there is no case or article that mentioned similarities between confession and
admission; not even indirectly. Thus, it can be assumed that although they are similar
concerning their nature of proving guilt and their relations to Evidence Act, there is
no distinct similarity between confession and admission apart from the fact that all
confession is admission.
 27

Conclusion

To conclude distinctions between confessions and admissions, a confession is

a statement made by an accused person admitting that he has either committed an
offence or at any rate, substantially all the facts that constitute the offence.
Confessions find place in criminal proceedings only. An admission is a general and a
much larger term, which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or any relevant
fact. Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may also be used in
criminal proceedings. Every confession is an admission but not every admission in a
criminal case is a confession. A statement may be irrelevant as a confession, but it
may be relevant as an admission. A statement not admissible as a confession may yet,
for other purposes, be admissible as an admission as against the person who made it.
An admission usually relates to civil transaction and comprises all statements
amounting to admission defined under Section 17 and made by person mentioned
under Sections 18, 19 and 20. Confessions, if deliberately and voluntarily made, may
be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed whereas admissions are never
conclusive to the matters admitted, though it may act as an estoppel.
Confessions always go against the person making it whereas admissions may
be used on behalf of the person making it under the exceptions provided in Section 21
of Evidence Act. Confessions made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for
the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused also as
mentioned in Section 30. On the other hand, admission by one of several defendants
in a suit is no evidence against others. Confession is statement written or oral which is
a direct admission of suit and admission is a statement, oral or written, which gives
inference about the liability of person making confession.
 References
Laws

1. Evidence Act, 1872

2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Books

1. Amīr ʻAlī, Maulawī, Syed Ameer Ali, and J. G. Woodroffe. The Law of
Evidence Applicable to British India. Thacker, Spink, 1907)
2. Paciocco, David M., and Lee Stuesser. The law of evidence. Toronto: Irwin
Law, 2005.
3. Ratanlal Ranchhoddas and Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, 1938, The Law of
Evidence (third edition) Pg-71
4. Sir Arthur Eggar, Law of the Eviednce
5. ဦးဖို းသာ - သက္ေသခံ ဥပေဒအဖြင့္က်မ္း

List of the Cases

1. Jagwant Singh vs. Sitam Singh [ILR 21 ALL]

2. Khaw Taw and one vs The Union of Burma [(1948) B.L.R. 310]
3. Li Yong Hong Sai Vs. Li Yong Aphone (Vol 7. Rangoon 720)
4. Maung Lay and six V. Union of Myanmar(1 Ran 609)
5. Maung Than V The Union of Myanmar [(1973) B.L.R. 49]
6. Maung Thar Hlaing V. Union Of Myanmar [(1964) B.L.R. 729]
7. Maung Tin Shwe V. Union of Myanmar [(1960) B.L.R. 125]
8. Maung Shin and Two Others V. The Union Of Burma [(1948) B.L.R 425]
9. PD Pataye V. the Government (AIR 1933 Rangoon 292)
10. R. v. Nilmadhab [(1888) 15 Cal. 595 (F.B.)]
11. Sobika Rahman (Appellant) vs. The Union of Myanmar [(1952) B.L.R 385]
12. Tan Chit Lye (a) Tet Shin (a) Maw Pein V. The Union of Burma [(1950)
B.L.R. 172]
13. Tha Nge Gyi and Maung Mya V. The King [(1946) B.L.R. 229]
14. U Pway v. U Htun Sein and 9 [(1958) B.L.R. 528]
 15. U Tun Kha Vs. Union of Myanmar [(1948) B.L.R. 49]

Journal Articles

1. Inbau, Fred E. "Law and police practice: restrictions in the law of

interrogation and confessions." J. Crim. L. & Criminology 89 (1998): 1393
2. Kassin, Saul M. "The psychology of confession evidence." American
Psychologist 52, no. 3 (1997): 221.
3. Kassin, Saul M., and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. "Confession evidence." The
psychology of evidence and trial procedure (1985): 67-94.
4. Perry, Clifton. "Admissions and confessions." The Journal of Philosophy,
Science & Law 12, no. 3 (2012): 1-12.
5. Polak, A. Laurence. "Admissions and Confessions." The Police Journal 35,
no. 3 (1962): 204-207.