Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Doctrine of Res Gestae (S. 6 IEA)

According to Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter (Section 6 to 55) declared to be relevant, and of no others. Relevant facts ought to be contemporaneous (existing at or occurring in the same period of time) in nature so as to admissible by the court under S.6 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the facts which surround the fact in issue and have happened immediately before or after the ‘act’ has been done is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. This doctrine is known as ‘Doctrine of res gestae’. If any of the facts are remotely connected to the main act, it wouldn’t be admissible in the court of law.

For the statement to be admissible, it needs to be proven as to come under one of the conditions that need to be fulfilled. The conditions are as follows:

1. The statement must be a statement of fact and not of opinion
2. The statement must have been made by a participant or witness of the transaction
3. The statement made by the bystander is admissible, is he was present at the scene of offence
4. The statement must explain, elucidate or characterise the incident in the same manner

The term ‘Res Gestae’ has been derived from Latin words meaning “things done’’. Halsbury defines ‘Res Gestae’ as “Facts which form part of the res gestae and are consequently provable as facts relevant to the issue; include acts, declarations and incidents which themselves constitute or accompany and explain the facts or transaction in issue.

Res gestae and the Hearsay Rule are the two intimately connected concepts under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the former being the exception and latter being the rule. Hearsay evidence means the statement of a person who has not seen the happening of the transaction, but has heard of it from others. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible in proof of a fact which has been stated by a third person. This rule has been long established as a fundamental principle in rule of evidence. But the principle of res gestae constitutes an exception to the rule of hearsay.

The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be a part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. But if there was an interval, however slight it may be, which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of res gestae.

Section 6 and the succeeding sections of the Act embody the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res gestae. As a matter of fact, the rule of res gestae formulated in section 6 is expounded and illustrated in sections 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Act and they should be read together. Relevancy has been described in section 6 to 11 and Sir James Stephen says that sections 6 to 11 “are by far the most important and original part of the Act as they affirm positively what facts may be proved. Section 6 makes the constituent incidents of a transaction relevant, if a part of the transaction is a fact in issue. These constituent incidents may be acts, declarations or other facts accompanying or explaining the transaction.

Section 6 of IEA:

 Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction:

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations:

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the [Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, thought. A may not have been present at all of them.

(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.

(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

In Sukhar v. State of U.P. 2000 Cri.L.J. 29 case, the Supreme Court observed “the principle of law embodied in Section 6 of Evidence Act is usually known as `Res Gestae.’ The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which though not in issue, is so connected with fact in issue as to form part of same transaction becomes relevant itself. This Rule is roughly speaking in exception to the general Rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible, rationale in making certain statements or facts admissible under Section 6, is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to fact in issue. But it is necessary that such statement or fact must form part of same transaction.”

Same Transaction:

According to the definition provided by Sir James Stephen, “a transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name such as a crime, contract or wrong or any other subject of enquiry, which may be in issue”. Thus, a transaction may be described as any physical act, or series of connected physical acts, together with the words accompanying such act or acts.

The term same transaction used in the section 6 is not defined in the act however the same is used to constitute a single act. That single act may be any crime, contract or wrong etc. The act possibly has been committed on different places or at different times. If the person who wants the court to give relief in his favour has to establish a chain of all those facts so complete as to form part of the same transaction.

In Atta Mohamad Khan v. Crown, Cr. A., 1950, Lahore High Court (Pre-independence) case, the Lahore High Court held that following things are essential for admitting the facts as a part of same transaction. These are proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose. These rules jointly make the rule relating to same transaction more clear. Therefore the evidence of all the fact forming the part of a same transaction may be given. However the evidence of different facts occurred at different times and places may be given and admissible if there is nexus between them

The test to determine whether a fact forms a part of the same transaction depends on whether they are related to each other in point of purpose, cause and effect, as probable or subsidiary acts to constitute one continuous action. To ascertain whether a series of acts are parts of the same transaction, it is essential to see whether they are linked together in such a way to form a continuous whole.  

Principle of Admissibility of Declarations Accompanying Acts:

The principal of admissibility of declarations accompanying acts can be summarized as:

• The declaration (oral and written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover, the declaration must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
• The declaration must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past.
• The declaration and the act maybe by the same person, or they may be by a different person, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant, and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot the declarations of all concerned in the common object is admissible.
• Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, the declaration is not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.

Case Laws:

In Teper v. Reoinam, (1952) 2 All ER 447 case, the Court observed that the rule that in a criminal trial hearsay evidence is admissible if it forms part of the res gestae is based on the proposition that the human utterance is both a fact and a means of communication and that human action may be so interwoven with words that the significance of the action cannot be understood without the correlative words and the dissociation of the words from the action would impede the discovery of the truth. It is essential that the words sought to be proved by hearsay should be, if not absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event at least so clearly associated with it that they are part of the thing being done and so an item or part of the real evidence and not merely a reported statement.

In Ratten v. Queen, (1971) 3 WLR 930 case, where a man was charged with the murder of his wife. He defended himself in the court saying that the shot went off accidentally. However, there was evidence to show that the deceased wife contacted the telephone operator and said, ‘get me the police please’. But before the operator could connect the call to the police the lady who spoke in distress gave her address and then the call ended suddenly. Thereafter the police went to the address so given and found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused. Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgment explained that the act of the deceased of calling the telephone operator and the words said by her on the call are relevant facts here as they form part of the same transaction which is in issue before the court. And on the basis of these facts the accused was convicted for murder as no victim of an accident can even think of calling the police and ask for help before the happening. Her call in distress clearly showed that the shooting in question was intentional rather than being accidental. 

In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2791 case, where he appellants were accused of setting a bus on fire, resulting in the death of 23 people and injuries to several others, the statements of the victims were recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. These statements were presented as evidence under Section 6, claiming they were part of the res gestae. the Apex Court held that there was some appreciable interval between the acts of incendiarism indulged in by the miscreants and the judicial magistrate recording statements of the victim. That interval, therefore, blocks the statement from acquiring legitimacy under section 6 of the Evidence Act. The Apex court held that such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. But if there was an interval, however slight it may be, which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of res gestae.

In Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3883 case, the Supreme Court held that statement of witness that on hearing sound of firing he went to the scene of occurrence and found the injured lying on the ground and he told him as to who had fired the shot is admissible under section 6, being part of same transaction i.e. act of shooting by accused.

In Rattan v. State of H. P., AIR 1997 SC 768 case, where the deceased was the house wife. She was shot dead by the gun during the night when she was sleeping. The assailant was a retired army man charged with the murder. When he fired at the deceased, the deceased shouted and other members hearing the noise of the bullet as well as the woman entered her room. The woman said that she was shot dead by the appellant and died. The statement given by her was held admissible as a part of same transaction because the statement was the natural outcome of the incident.

In Uttam Singh vs. State of M. P., 2003 CriLJ 560 case, where the child who was an eye witness of the incident was the son of the deceased. He was sleeping with his father on the night of the occurrence of incidence. The accused came with an axe and gave blow on the neck of the deceased. The child awakened by the sound of the blow. The child saw the incident and shouted for his mother and sister for help. His mother and sister entered in the room and the child shouted again that the accused named by him has committed the act with his father. Other witnesses also gathered in the house. The evidence of the child was held admissible as part of the same transaction as such shout was the natural and probable consequence of the act/fact.

In Hadu Samanta vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1951 Orissa 53 case, the accused was charged for murdering. The deceased was giving gold and money to the accused for teaching him which golden treasures from underneath the land can be taken out. As the purpose could not be served, the deceased went to the accused’s residence to take back the gold and money given to him when the accused administered poison to him. The dead body was found lying near a village tank. The body was identified by deceased’s wife. The case for murder was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence. The most important incriminating evidence on which the prosecution relied was given by one Prosecution Witness 6 (P.W. 6). He stated that when he was taking his hired cart from his village to Partabur, on returning he was passing through the village of the accused. There he found a cart standing at the door of the accused on the road, blocking his way. And so he asked a person standing by that cart to shift it a little. That person asked P.W. 6 to take his cart sideway as “a dead body was loaded on the cart”. It was the same dead body of the deceased which was later discarded near the village tank by this cart. Thus, it was argued whether this statement by the bystander could be taken as relevant to the fact in issue and that if it could form part of the same transaction, i.e. the murder of the deceased. The court found it to be inadmissible. It held that illustration ‘a’ of the Section 6 indicated that the spontaneous statement of a bystander who “sees the commission of murder” is admissible for it to form part of the same transaction which is murder. Thus, there was no indication that the person who made the statement had actually witnessed the murder or that no substantial time had elapsed between the occurrence of transaction and the statement.

In Basanti v. State of H.P., AIR 1987 SC 1572 case, where the appellant was married to a person who was seven years elder to the wife. There was a servant in the house of the appellant aged about 70 years. The servant was the paramour of the appellant. The deceased husband knew the fact of his wife’s affair with the servant. He was intending to marry another woman and wanted to take the marriage dissolved by divorce. On the other hand, the appellant wife intended to carry on the situation as it is. But one day when the situation went out of control, the appellant and her paramour conspired to commit the murder of the deceased husband. They actually committed the murder of the deceased by striking blows on the neck of the deceased. The relatives of the husband lodged FIR for his missing. During the investigation, the appellant misled the police by telling that the deceased has went out of the station and will come back after 4 or 5 days. But when the body was recovered, her blood stained dupatta was also recovered. The prosecution produced the circumstantial evidences about the incident which were held admissible in the trial court as well as in the High Court. The case finally came before the Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after the incident the conduct of the appellant of taking all the villagers and other relatives of her husband on a false track is admissible as a part of the same transaction.

In R v. Foster, 1834, (1834) 6 C&C 325 case two persons were going on a road. They saw a car going at a very high speed at some distance from them. After a little bit of time, they heard the noise of a man, they reached to the spot of noise where they found a man severely injured. The injured man told that a car of a particular number crushed him and the man died. In the trial the evidence of the deceased man’s statement to the two persons were held admissible as a part of the same transaction.

In R. vs. Bedingfiled,  (1879) 14 Cox CC 34 case, the doctrine of res gestae was not accepted by Justice Cookburn. In this case a young girl was living with her friend named Herry. By the passage of the time, relation between them was strained. One day Herry cut throat of his friend. The girl went to the house of Herry’s Aunt who was living at some distance of their house, she knocked the door and when the door was opened she told the aunt to see, what Herry has done to me. During the trial the statement of the girl to the aunt was held inadmissible. The court opined that the statement during the occurrence was admissible as part of same transaction. Anything said after the incident is over though relevant but can’t be admitted as part of same transaction.

In Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayan, 2000 CriLJ 3175 case, the offender had killed his wife and daughter. The deposition was made by the father of the accused that who made a phone call to the accused and said over the call that his son had killed the deceased. The contention raised before the court was, whether this statement of the accused’s father can be recognised under the doctrine of res gestae. Unable to determine the time of the phone call, where this same information was relayed, and whether it was done simultaneously with the commission of the crime or immediately after, this evidence was held inadmissible under the said principle.

Whether FIR can be treated as res gestae:

One important question which has risen before the court is that whether lodging of FIR can be treated as part of same transaction. FIR shall be treated as res gestae if the person witnesses the crime, he makes a cry of such crime being committed to the people in vicinity and then goes to the police to file an FIR. The fact that some time has elapsed from the occurrence of the crime is immaterial.

In Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778 case, where the deceased was the wife of the appellant. The marital relations between the appellant and the deceased wife were not good. One day, the deceased was taken to the room by the appellant. The father and mother of the appellant also followed him. After some time, noise of crying of the deceased that “save me” was listened by a person who was present at the place of incidence/occurrence immediately informed the police to lodged FIR. The police reached to the spot and found that the deceased was killed and burned by the appellant secretly. During the trial the FIR lodged by the neighbour was held admissible as part of the same transaction. However, the court also opined that FIR may be relevant but will not be admissible in all the cases and where there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, it can’t be admissible. The Supreme Court observed that all spontaneous statements in some way connected with the main transaction are not admissible, statement is not admissible u/s 6 only because it is uttered in course of transaction, while no doubt the spontaneity of statement is guarantee of the truth, the rationale for its admissibility under Section 6 is that it is part of same transaction and not merely because it is spontaneous.

In the cases of matrimonial disputes, the doctrine is of much importance. In the relation of husband and wife, direct evidence regarding their behaviour to each other are not available because such relation comes under privileged relation, therefore evidences based on circumstances can only be produced. The offences relating to women such as rape, sexual harassment, outraging the modesty, there is difficulty to get direct evidence because such types of offences are committed in isolation. The prosecution has to relay upon the circumstantial evidence and the statement of the victim. The doctrine of res gestae has extended to testimony of the child also. The child having age of insufficient maturity is not capable of giving evidence. Moreover the child who due to fear or pressure or any mental shock is not able to give his testimony is capable of becoming a witness however if he is the witness of any incident, anything said by him during the incident or his shouting will be considered as a part of same transaction.

Section 6 and the succeeding sections of the Act embody the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res gestae. As a matter of fact, the rule of res gestae formulated in section 6 is expounded and illustrated in sections 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Act and they should be read together. Relevancy has been described in section 6 to 11 and Sir James Stephen says that sections 6 to 11 “are by far the most important and original part of the Act as they affirm positively what facts may be proved.

The facts relevant to the issue (res gestae) have been arranged in the Indian Evidence Act in the following manner:

• Things connected with the facts in issue as part of the same transaction, occasion, cause, effect, motive, conduct etc. (sections 6-16)
• Things said about it, viz., admissions, confessions (sections 17-31)
• Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses (sections 32-33)
• Statements under special circumstances (sections 34-39)
• Things decreed in courts, viz., judgments in other cases (sections 40-44)
• Opinions about it (sections 45-51)
• Character and reputation of parties concerned (sections 52-55)

Conclusion:

The Doctrine of Res Gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and, the doctrine is an exception to the hearsay clause, however, in a court of law, hearsay testimony is not admissible. Some transactions which have taken place after time of the main occurrence must be taken into consideration as res gestae if they are the sequential/consequential facts of the main transaction.  It is well settled by now that a statement in order to be a part of res gestae must have been made substantially contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it so that there is no opportunity for reflection or fabrication. It is in this background that the interval between the act and the statement assumes significance. In no case, the statement should be in the nature of a mere declaration on narration of a past event. Hon’ble judiciary through its various case laws has widened the scope of the doctrine of res gestae. While the concept of res gestae is widely accepted, there have been debates and challenges regarding its application. Critics argue that the concept may be too broad and subjective, leading to potential misuse or abuse. Additionally, determining what constitutes part of the same transaction can be a complex task, and different courts may interpret it differently.

For More Articles on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here