a. Detail of the case
The background facts of this case are about a young women name Adeline Vitharatna was
murdered on the 14th March 1959. Her body was found lying over the roadside at
Timbiriwewa. After a post-mortem examination, the facts of Adeline were pregnant for about
7 months and her age was between 20 to 25 years’ old. The cause of death is multiple injur ies
due to been run over by a mobile vehicle repeatedly. Upon the revelation of the prosecution
witnesses in the trial it was found that on November 1956 the appellant and the deceased had
a relationship and the appellant is the father of illegitimate child bore by the deceased on
August 1957. The witness also stated that the appellant had used a different name with the
deceased and had promised to marry her. However, at the same time, the appellant had a
familiar relationship with an upper-class family and proposed marriage to the family’s
daughter.
After the deceased discovered that appellant has used a different name with her, she has
sent a letter to the headmaster of the school the appellant is working a teacher telling the
appellant had promised to marry her at Kalutara and she would have revealed the relations hip
of her with the appellant to the Director of Education on January 1959. Subsequently the
deceased was seen at the appellant place of work on 2nd March 1959 and later was seen living
with the second accused home at Kalawella Village. On 14th March 1959, the appellant was
seen with his car in front of the second accused home taking the deceased and second accused
with him. Later, on the same day, the appellant and the second and third accused was seen in
a hotel at Puttalam, around 9.00 pm. The appellant’s car then had been maintained on 16th
March
The appellant admission is regarding him admitting that the deceased is his mistress and
taking deceased in his car on the 14th March 1959 and on 15th March 1959 he passed the
murder scene around 3.00 to 3.30 pm. This is an appeal case regarding the appellant contention
submission before the Court for his statement to be assessed upon the matter of whether it is
an admission or confession.
Additionally, the defence counsel submits an appeal to the appeal court because they
believe the appellant stated to the Police Inspector amount to a confession which then renders
it to be inadmissible evidence to prosecute him according to the provision stipulated in Section
1
122(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, statement of confession not to be administered as evidence
it is an aid to the trial only.
b. Main issue of the case
Whether the statement of the appellant to the police is admissible evidence deemed as
admission to a fact or a confession contain guilt and prejudicial to the accused which is merely
an aid to the trial and not admissible in court as a piece of evidence?
c. Decision of the court
The Court held, statement of the appellant does not amount to a confession and it is
merely an admission to a relevant fact in issues for the case investigation. Moreover, the
objective test has been done which is to identify the differences between an admission and
confession statement. The test is simply done by applying a reasonable man test of whether
there is a presence of the sense of guilt in the statement. Additionally, the court put the test into
practice and found that the appellant statement merely amounts to admission as it clearly no
presence of guilt when the appellant state that he passes a scene of the murder by the roadside.
d. Reflection
The lesson I learned from reviewing this case is about the differences between
admission and confession. It is to the general believe these two words are of similar meaning.
However, when it applied in the legal field it has been given a different characteristic thus hold
a different meaning compared to its initial lingual definition. A definition on admission and
confession given by the Section 17(1) and (2) of Evidence Act 1957 are 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 a confession is an admission made at any
time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed
that offence.
Meanwhile, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition, an admission and
a confession mean, an admission is an act of admitting some facts and a confession means,
disclosure of one’s sins. For instance, in the case of Sahoo v State of UP AIR 1966 SC 40,
Subba Rao Judge quote as ‘to scrutinizing the provision of section 17 and 30 of Evidence Act
1957 that statement is a genus, admission is the species and confession is the sub-species”
2
Next lesson I learned from this case regarding admission and confession is an exception
to the hearsay rule. The Evidence Act stipulated them as relevant evidence presumably as they
are declaration against the interest of the person making them and it is probably are true. For
example, in the case of MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei (1970) 2 MLJ 163 the court held the report
of the appellant, in this case, was a first information report and was admissible under Section
17, 18 and 21 of the Evidence Ordinance, 1950.
Furthermore, I also learned that this case has established the objective test in
determining a statement into an admission or a confession which is a confession is an
admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence stating that he committed the
offence which is plenary confession and suggesting that he committed that offence which is
non-plenary confession. This case was then adopted by the Malaysian Federal Court in
Lemanit v Public Prosecutor [1965] 2 MLJ 26, which the prosecution relied on the confession
made by the appellant and recorded by a magistrate. The court held, the statement made by the
appellant, in this case, was clearly inculpatory and therefore the statement was rightly recorded
and admitted in evidence as a confession.
Another lesson that I learned from this case is a statement that does not amount to a
confession can be used as an admission. Besides, an admission is substantive evidence of the
fact admitted and is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. This can be seen in the case
of Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim(No.3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1, a quote by
Augustine Paul Judge “A party’ own statement are in all cases admissible against himse lf.
Thus section 21 of evidence act 1957 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.”
All in all, I have learned a great amount of lesson from this case as it gives out an
objective test to determine admission or a confession. Before I did a review of this case I am
in a muddle trying to determine their characteristic.
3