Difference between Admission and Confession

Law of Evidence-I

Bahria University Islamabad Campus

Submitted to; Dr. Sohaib Mukhtar

Submitted by; Muhammad Umar 01-177182-027

Parsa Khan 01-177182-046

Mudasir Khan 01-177182-021

Mohammad Saifullah 01-177182-020

Shakeel Ahmad 01-177182-047

Dated; January 21th, 2022

1
Page

1
Difference between Admission and Confession
Introduction
In the process of resolution of conflicts in court proceedings, a case may come across many
evidence and points that support or undermine either party’s claims. The case is also guided by
witnesses who testify on oath. They admit what happened and what did not. Similarly, the
defendant may or may not admit about what is alleged against him.

Admissions and confessions play a major part as a beginning of proofs. It has no less value than
other evidential means like circumstantial evidence and testimonies.

Basis in Islam
After the emergence of Islam, the previous rulings of tyranny were quashed and the norm of
“Might is Right” was replaced with systems of justice and fair dealings. Ialam as a religion
emphasized the importance of Justice and urged its believers to do justice even with their
enemies. Some of the Holy Quran’s verses regarding it are as follows,

“And let not the detestation for a people who did bar you from the sacred Masque Cause you to
commit aggression”1

On another occasion,

“O Believers! Do stand up for the sake of God as a witness of justice, and never do leave justice
for the hatred of a nation. Do justice- that is nearer to Piety. And fear you God. Allah is well
aware of what you do”2

Validity in Islamic Law

Admission in a court is explained in the following words, “Let knowing the court about the
rights of others on him”3. On the other hand, confession is a type of admission by the accused. It
is defined as follows “Confession means the statement of a person before the court stating that
he has committed the offence for which he is accused. It also means the evidence of a person
against himself before a court”.4
1
Al Quran: 5:2.
2

2
Ibid: 5:8.
Page

3
Ahmad Ibrahim Bak, turuq al Ithbat al Shanriah: 277.
4
The Criminal Law of Islam:163.

2
Admission and Confession in Evidence law of Pakistan
The Law of Evidence is governed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance 1984 of Pakistan.
Previously, the Evidence Act 1872 was followed but in the Islamization Era of President Zia Ul
Haq the laws of Pakistan were brought in conformity to Islam.5 All the laws that were repugnant
were then replaced. Similarly the Evidence Act was replaced by the Qanun e Shahadat
Ordinance 1984.

Article 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance defines “Admission”. It has been defined as

“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 the persons hereinafter mentioned.”

The persons capable of making such statements have been listed in Article 31, and the
onwards sections deal with their further procedures. Basically, admission is a voluntary
confession made by a party or someone identified by him in legal interest, of the existence of
certain facts which are in issue or are relevant to an issue in the case. 6

There are mainly two types of admissions: Judicial and Extra Judicial. Extra Judicial
Admissions do not appear on the record of a case since their nature is informal.7

Effect of admission
1. “Admission made is the best evidence against the party making it”.8
2. “Facts admitted need not be proved”. 9
3. “When the Plaint discloses a cause of action, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree
on the admissions of the defense”.10
4. “An admission of the claims of the other party settles a civil dispute. Therefore,
admissions are the strongest evidence possible and even a strange construction of a
document will be assumed to be correct in view of an admission”.11
5
William L. Richter, ‘Pakistan in 1984: Digging In’ (1985) Vol. 25, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1984: Part II (Feb., 1985)
145.
6
Shaukat Mehmood and Nadeem Shaukat, The Law of Evidence, Qanun-e-Shahadat, Vol 1, 6 th Edn. Legal Research
Center LHR, 2006, p.376.
7
AIR 2957 All. 1=ILR (1956) 2 All. 399 (FB).
8
PLJ 2000 Lah. 912=2000 YLR 1449.
3

9
2004 CLD 838 (DB)+1998 MLD 1252 (DB) +PLJ 1998 Lah.379=PLD 1997 Lah.153.
Page

10
AIR 1921 Pat. 280.
11
AIR 1914 PC 220.

3
Article 37 begins the law of Confession. Confession has not been explicitly defined in the
Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance

Difference between Admission and Confession

1. “The acid test which differentiates a confession from 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, it is an admission”.12 “Where the accused
stated that the woman was a consenting party and that they had sexual intercourse with
her consent. It was held that these are merely acknowledgments of subordinate facts not
directly involving guilt and, therefore, fall short of being confessions”.13
A confession must be a direct statement and not merely an inference from the words of
the accused. It must be made voluntarily and without any form of coercion being used.
2. The term “admission” is a term of wider connotation, and it can be used to indicate
confession also14. But there is a clear distinction between an admission and a confession.
“Confession” does not include a non-inculpatory admission which falls short of being an
admission of guilt.15 In order to distinguish between a confession and an admission a
simple test can be applied. If the statement by itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
maker, it is a confession. If on the other hand, the statement falls short of it, it amounts to
an ‘admission’. Where there is a direct admission of guilt, it is not possible to treat the
statement as an admission. Where conviction can be based on the statement alone it is a
confession and where some supplementary evidence is needed to authorize a conviction,
it is an admission.16
3. Admissions can be made before the Court by a number of relevant persons.17 Meanwhile
confessions can only be made by the accused himself i.e. the person charged with the
offence which is the subject matter of the statement. 18

12
AIR 1959 All. 518 (DB)+1947 Marwar LR 8 (Cr) (DB).
13
PLD 1959 Lah. 38.
14
Madh BLJ 1954 HCR
15
10 Cr.L.J. 369 (DB)(Bom.)
4

16
NLR 1982 Cr.117=PLD 1982 Lah. 180=1982 Law Notes 43 (DB)+ AIR 1959 All. 518=1959 Cr.L.J. 1940.
Page

17
QSO 1984, s31.
18
AIR 1952 SC 354+AIR 1956 Madh-B 107 (DB)+35Mad.397 (FB)=6 All. 509 (FB).

4
 4. Admissions are made in civil as well as criminal proceedings, while confessions can only
be made in criminal proceedings.19
5. An admission could be relevant, but not conclusive proof of fact which could be proved
to be incorrect or to have been erroneously made.20

Case Laws on Confession And Admission;

1) 2021 SCMR 1409

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and Others---Appellant/Petitioners

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Brief facts of the case are that Bakhat Bahadar a 50 year old was found dead lying in the bushes
nearby his poultry farm located within the vicinity of police station Vandar, District lasbela. The
dead body was tied with ropes and plastic pipes and Saif Ullah and Jamshed employed as
attendants at the farm were missing from the scene along with 5000 birds of poultry flocks. The
deceased brother Akhter Zeb named them as suspects in the crime report.As the investigation
progressed, Muhammad Siddique, Nadim Ahmed and Ata Muhammad were apprehended for
being privies to the crime. They were charged by the learned Additional Session Judge at lesbela
for committing Qatl-i-amd of the deceased during the course of Haraba. The claimed trail in
result of which they were convicted under Section 396 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal
Code 1860 (PPC) where Saif ullah and Muhammad Siddique were sentenced to imprisonment
for life and Jamshed, Nadim Ahmed and Ata Muhammed were sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

5
Page

19
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-confession-and-admission/
20
1999 SCMR 2578

5
After hearing both sides and perusal of record it was held by the court that the prosecution case is
structured upon various pieces of circumstantial evidence that prominently includes confessional
statement of Jamshed. Prosecution appears to have rested its case on the judicial confession,
retracted by Jamshed appellant at the first available opportunity. And it is appear form the
reocred that the confessional statement was fraught with doubt and taken by torture so
consequently, convictions cannot be maintained. Impugned judgment is set aside; the appellants
are acquitted of the charge and have already been ordered to be released if not required to be
detained in any other case.

2) P L D 2020 Islamabad 129

Facts:

Brief facts referred in the instant civil revision petition are that Mst. Syeda Irshad Fatima Rizvi
(petitioner) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.10.1999, executed
between Bashir Ahmad (Respondent No.1) and the petitioner for sale and purchase of Plot No.4,
Category-V, measuring 25x40, Street No.80, Sector G-13/1, Islamabad (suit plot) in the scheme
launched by the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF). The total sale
consideration fixed between the parties was Rs.275,000/-, whereas Rs.150,000/- was paid by
petitioner to respondent No.1 as earnest money while the remaining consideration was to be
deposited by petitioner in the office of FGEHF within prescribed days. All the original
documents were handed over to petitioner by respondent No.1 at the time of execution of
agreement. The suit plot was provisionally allotted to respondent No.2 by the FGEHF.
Respondent No.1 executed a receipt dated 09.10.1999 regarding receiving of Rs.25,000/-, from
the petitioner and the entire suit has been contested on the basis of authority letter which was
allegedly executed on behalf of Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.1, whereby an
authority was given to Respondent No.1 to deal with the affairs of suit plot. An agreement dated
20.03.2000 was also placed on record, which was executed between Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
6
Page

6
Principles:

 Article 34, 35 & 36- Admission,Prerequisites, Admission, even though if considered to

be legal one, is a relevant fact which clearly connotes that admission is not conclusive
against party making it, Oral admission as to contents of document is not relevant, unless
and until party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence of contents of such document in terms of Art. 35 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or
unless genuineness of document along with contents has been proved.
 The mere admission of signature in one line itself is wrong on point of fact. In terms of
Article 34 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an admission, even though, if
considered to be legal one, was a relevant fact, which clearly connoted that admission
was not a conclusive against a party making it. Similarly, the oral admission as to
contents of document is not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them
shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of contents of such document in
terms of Article 35 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 or unless the genuineness of
document along with contents has been proved. Similarly, Article 36 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 settled the proposition in the following manner:
 Admissions in civil cases, when relevant: In civil cases no admission is relevant if it is
made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under
circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that
evidence of it should not be given.

Held:

 Revision dismissed
7

3) 2020 MLD 334

Page

7
FACTS OF THE CASE:

The facts of the prosecution case as per FIR lodged by one Allah Warrayo son of Ishaque, by
caste Bajeer, with Police Station Diplo, on 07.02.2004, at 0140 hours are that, he has four sons
and one daughter. His elder son Ishaque was married with Mst. Ladan daughter of Lakho Bajeer.
It is further the case of the prosecution that, some time back complainant suspected that Mst.
Ladan is on illicit terms with accused Ghulam Muhammad son of Karimdino Bajeer, hence he
made complaint to the elders of the said Ghulam Muhammad to prevent him from committing
such an act. Complainant thereafter along with his family members and Ishaque shifted to an
other house but Ghulam Muhammad did not mend his ways and continued on illicit terms with
Mst. Ladan and she also continued illicit terms with Ghulam Muhammad. On 24.1.2004,
complainant party after taking night-meals including son of complainant Ishaque and his wife
Mst. Ladan went to sleep in a hut made of straw/chounra, whereas complainant and other
inmates of the house went to sleep in separate room of the house. On the following morning, all
the family members woke up, excepting Ishaque. Complainant went and gave call to Ishaque but
no reply was received by him, thereafter he entered into the hut/chounra and found Ishaque lying
dead. Complainant inquired from Mst. Ladan about the death of Ishaque and she showed
ignorance. Complainant started raising cries, which attracted Faiz Muhammad son of Lakhadino,
Hassan son of Pinial and they all saw dead body of Ishaque having red marks of violence on both
sides of his neck/gullet/trachea and chest. It is further case of the prosecution that, so many
villagers gathered at the place of incident including Rahimdino son of Jalal Bajeer maternal
uncle of accused Ghulam Muhammad and he asked complainant party that, Ishaque had died on
the dictates of Almighty Allah and they should burry him quickly. The complainant and co-
villagers being innocent persons remained silent and buried the dead body. Complainant
suspected that his daughter in law Mst. Ladan sharing common intention with her paramour
Ghulam Muhammad had added sleeping pills in the night meals and catered the same to family
members, who all went to sleep and thereafter they committed murder of Ishaque by way of
throttling. It appears from the record that the trial court framed the charge against the
accused/respondents at Ex.3 under the aforementioned sections 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C. on
27.4.2004 to which accused/respondents pleaded not guilty.
8
Page

JUDGEMENT

8
In our view, the trial court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record
and arrived at correct conclusion. We are clear in our mind that the reasoning given by the trial
court for acquitting the accused is wholly justified and sustainable and the same is in accordance
with the settled principles of law. As such, on consideration of the totality of the circumstances,
the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

4) 2021 MLD 1809

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Brief facts of the case are that on 1st May, 2017, an FIR No.54 of 2017 was lodged under section
395 of Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C) with the police station Gawalmandi, Quetta on the basis of
written report of the complainant of Attaullah dated 10th April, 2017 in which he alleging that on
the day of incident that is 10th,April,2017 he was in Chaman when his family members informed
his on the about dacoity in the house, on which he returned home and it was informed that on the
day of incident at about 7:50 a.m., around six persons knocked the door pretending themselves to
be security force. One of the speaking Pashto and wearing commando uniform and five out of six
were with muffled. It was informed by the complainant that his servant Abdul Majeed opened
the door and they entered the house and inquired about Aminullah and his servant told them that
he had proceeded to Karachi and after that they conducted search of the house and looted five
crore rupees cash, jewelry amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs. With these averment FIR was
registered against unknown persons.

DECISION OF THE CASE:

After the registration of FIR and on completion of investigation challan was submitted to the
court and after the completion of the trail the court acquitted accused Muhammed Amir and
Hayatullah of the charge by giving benefit of doubt and whereas the accused Muhammed Naeem
was convicted under section 395,P.P.C and sentenced to suffer ten(10) years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.30,000/ and in default of fine to further undergo six months simple
imprisonment .
9
Page

9
5) 2021 YLR 969

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Muhammed Noman son of Shaikh Badaruddin
lodged FIR on 06.09.2014 stating that he was working he was working as a Manager at United
Queens Food situated at U.P.Mor. Karachi where Muhammad Pannah son of Arz Muhammad
Brohi an employee of U-Security, was performing his duty as security guard, at about 12:40 a.m.
in the night they were busy in doing their respective works, suddenly two unknown persons aged
about 24/25 years wearing pant/shirt Urdu Speaking, the person sitting in the back was wearing
cap, came on 125CC motorcycle and apprehended the above named security guard by putting
arm over his neck got him fallen on earth and tried to snatch his pistol during which on resistance
of security guard, the person wearing cap made, two fire shots which hit the security guard who
became injured and both the' accused person made their escape good on the 125CC motorcycle.
They also took away the pistol of injured security guard then they shifted the injured security
guard to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital through ambulance where he expired. On the completion of
usual investigation challan was submitted to the court where charged was framed by the court to
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

On the completion of trail the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. the
accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him and jail authorities were directed to
release the accused if not required to be detained in any other case.

10
Page

10
Bibliography
Statutes
1. Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance 1984.
Case-laws
Books
1. Shaukat Mehmood and Nadeem Shaukat, The Law of Evidence, Qanun-e-Shahadat, Vol
1, 6th Edn. Legal Research Center LHR, 2006.
2. FAIZAN MUSTAFA ‘ISLAMIC LAW OF CONFESSION: A COMPARISON WITH
WESTERN AND INDIAN LAWS ‘(1993) Vol. 32, No. 1 Islamic Studies (1993 IIUI)

Journals
1. PLJ 2000 Lah. 912=2000 YLR 1449.
2. 2004 CLD 838 (DB)+1998 MLD 1252 (DB) +PLJ 1998 Lah.379=PLD 1997 Lah.153.
3. Madh BLJ 1954 HCR
4. 10 Cr. L.J. 369 (DB)(Bom)
5. PLD 1959 Lah. 38.
6. 1999 SCMR 2578
7. PLD 1995 Lah. 255=PLJ 1995 Lah. 468=NLR 1995 Civ. 637=1995 Law Notes 373
(DB).
8. 1994 SCMR 1966.

11
Page

11