[2010] 4 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Low Kian Boon & Anor v Public Prosecutor (Heliliah FCJ) 449 The ordinary idea of hearsay is what is heard out of court from a non-witness, and admissions are therefore generally treated as exceptions to the hearsay rule. Admissions are not, however, open to all the objections applicable to hearsay testimony. It is true that they are unsworn statements made out of court like hearsay testimony, but they are statements not of third persons but of a party to the proceeding and for the reason stated about what a party said against his interest may be presumed to be true. An admission is therefore substantive evidence of the fact admitted (see Union of India v Koksh Builders and Financiers AIR 1977 SC 409, Lam Choon & Co v Lim Yam Hong (1931) SSLR 96). This rationale is lucidly explained by Subba Rao J in Sahoo v State of UP AIR 1966 SC 40 at p 42 in the following words: A scrutiny of the provisions of ss 17–30 of the Evidence Act discloses as one learned author puts it, that statement is a genus, admission is the species and confession is the sub-species. Shortly stated, a confession is a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. What does the expression ‘statement’ mean? The dictionary meaning of the word ‘statement’ is ‘the act of stating, reciting or presenting verbally or on paper. The term ‘statement’, therefore, includes both oral and written statements. Is it also a necessary ingredient of the term that it shall be communicated to another? The dictionary meaning of the term does not warrant any such extension; or the reason of the rule underlying the doctrine of admission or confession demands it. Admissions and confessions are exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Evidence Act places them in the category of relevant evidence presumably on the ground that, as they are declarations against the interest of the person making them, they are probably true. The probative value of an admission or a confession does not depend upon its communication to another, though, just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence only on proof. This proof in the case of oral admission or confession can be offered only by witnesses who heard the admission or confession, as the case may be. The following illustration pertaining to a written confession brings out the said idea; A kills B; enters in his diary that he had killed him, puts it in his drawer and absconds. When he places his act on record, he does not communicate to another; indeed, he does not have any intention of communicating it to a third party. Even so, at the trial the said statement of the accused can certainly be proved as a confession made by him. If that be so in the case of a statement in writing, there cannot be any difference in principle in the case of an oral statement. Both must stand on the same footing. This aspect of the doctrine of confession received some treatment from well-known authors on evidence, like Taylor, Best and Phipson. In A Treatise on the Law of Evidence by Taylor (11th Ed) Vol I, the following statement appears at p 596: What the accused has been overheard muttering to himself, or saying to his wife or to any other person in confidence will be receivable in evidence. In the Principles of the Law of Evidence by WM Best (12th Ed), at p 454, it is stated much to the same effect thus: