448 Malayan Law Journal [2010] 4 MLJ perpetrations of the crime as well. This evidence must also be taken into consideration with the evidence of Wong Wing Hing about what the child had informed’. [26] This specific aspect of the ‘admission’ by the second appellant has been given particular attention by the COA as it is rendered admissible by virtue of s 21 of the Evidence Act 1950. It is obvious that the HC judge has given credence to what was stated by the second appellant to SP17. In Biswanath Prasad v Dwarka Prasad, the Supreme Court of India held: (xvi) Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of ss 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. The admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness-box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness under s 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence, and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence. A B C D E [27] In Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1 the learned judge stated: …, I shall consider whether the out of court statements of an accused person amount to hearsay. This requires a consideration of ss 17, 18 and 21 of the Evidence Act 1950 which deal with admissions. Section 17 says that: 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 18(1) provides that statements made by a party to the proceedings are admissions. The word ‘proceeding’ in s 18(1) may be civil or criminal (see Sarkar on Evidence (14th Ed) Vol I p 323). An accused is a ‘party to the proceeding’ (see Sarkar on Evidence (15th Ed) Vol I says at p 372). As the Law of Evidence by Woodroffe and Amir Ali (16th Ed) Vol 1 says at p 739: F G H In criminal cases, the accused is always a party, and his admissions are admissible against him, subject of course to the provisions of ss 24 to 27. A party’s own statements are in all cases admissible against himself (see Slatterie v Pooley 6 M & W 664). Thus, s 21 provides, inter alia, that admission are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them. An admission is treated as an exception to the hearsay rule and thus admissible. As Sarkar on Evidence (14th Ed) Vol I says at p 309: I