Select the correct statements ndash i A mere proof of admission after the person whose admission it ...........

Indian Evidence Act (IEA) 1872 Admission and Rejection of Evidence

Select the correct statements –

i. A mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilized against him.

ii. A mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, can be utilized against him.

iii. An admission made by a person cannot be split up and part of it cannot be used against him.

iv. An admission made by a person can be split up and part of it can be used against him.

v. Admission made in the earlier proceedings can be used in subsequent proceedings without offending an opportunity of explanation to the person who made the statements.

vi. Admission made in the earlier proceedings cannot be used in subsequent proceedings without offending an opportunity of explanation to the person who made the statements.

vii. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of Section 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted.

viii. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of section 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act and therefore, they are the conclusive proof of the matters admitted.

(i), (iv), (v), (viii),

(i), (iii), (v), (vii)

(i), (iii), (vi), (vii)

(ii), (iii), (v), (vii)

Explanation:

A mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilised against
him. [Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil AIR 1977 SC 1712 at 1715].
It is a settled law that an admission made by a person cannot be split up and part of it cannot be used against him. [Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of MP AIR 1952 SC 343].