Subject – LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC – Applicability of doctrine of ‘Res Gestae’ along with the

concept of ‘presumption of the court’.

Supervised By:

NAME: MAYANK ROY

ROLL NO.: (Admit card No.) -

(Class Roll. No.) - 07
COURSE: BBA/LL.B; Semester- 8TH

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my sincerest thanks to Miss
Arpita, Indian institute of legal studies, for her invaluable guidance, sound advice and
affectionate attitude during the course of my studies.
I have no hesitation in saying that she molded raw clay into whatever I am through her incessant
efforts and keen interest shown throughout my academic pursuit. It is due to her patient guidance
that I have been able to complete the task.
I would also thank the Indian institute of legal studies library for the wealth of information
therein. I also express my regards to the library staff for cooperating and making available the
books for this project research paper.
Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me throughout the
project work.

Date: Name: MAYANK ROY

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A) Aims and objectives

B) Statement of problems
C) Research questions
D) Mode of citation……………………………………………………………………3-4

CHAPTER 1) INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….5-6

CHAPTER 2) DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE………………………………………………7-8

CHAPTER 3) ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES GESTAE……………………..9-10

CHAPTER 4) EXPANSION OF DOCTRINE……………………………………………….11-12

CHAPTER 5) PRESUMPTION OF COURT……………………………………………….13-14

CHAPTER 6) DISCRETIONARY PRESUMPTION………………………………………15-16

CHAPTER 7) CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………17

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..18

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this paper is to investigate the manner in which the res gestae doctrine has been
characterized under Common Law, and to trace its development as an exception to the
exclusionary hearsay rule. It also seeks to evaluate the extent and nature of its import in the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the manner in which it has been construed by
the Indian Judiciary.

Research Questions

How has res gestae been defined under Common Law and to what extent has it been utilized as
an exception to the hearsay rule?

Why is a strict interpretation of res gestae problematic and how did the Common Law courts
overcome this difficulty while considering the relevance of admissible hearsay?

4
 INTRODUCTION
The enactment and adoption of the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure
introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts pertaining to admissibility of
evidences in the Indian courts of law. Until then, the rules of evidences were based on the
traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities of India and were different
for different people depending on caste, community, faith and social position. The Indian
Evidence Act introduced a standard set of law applicable to all Indians.
The law is mainly based upon the firm work by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who could be
called the founding father of this comprehensive piece of legislation.
Res gestae (Latin "things done") is a term found in substantive and procedural American
jurisprudence and English law. In American substantive law, it refers to the start-to-end period of
a felony. In American procedural law, it refers to a former exception to the hearsay rule for
statements made spontaneously or as part of an act. The English and Canadian version of res
gestae is similar, but is still recognized as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the principle of res gestae. Hearsay evidence is not
admissible in court of law. But, res gestae is exception to hearsay rule. The rationale behind this
is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly any time for concoction.
So, such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at
least immediately thereafter.
Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what
is a transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the
main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. If any statement is made
under the stress of excitement than such statement form part of the same transaction and is
admissible before the court of law. The strength of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. Each case in
criminal law should be judged according to its own merit. When it is proved that the evidence
forms part of the same transaction it is admissible under sec. 6 but whether it is reliable or not
depends on the discretion of the Judge.
Presumption In the law of evidence, a presumption of a particular fact can be made without the
aid of proof in some situations. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from
one party to the opposing party in a court trial.
There are two types of presumption: rebuttable presumption and conclusive presumption. A
rebuttable presumption is assumed true until a person proves otherwise (for example
the presumption of innocence). In contrast, a conclusive (or irrebuttable) presumption cannot be
refuted in any case (such as defense of infancy in some legal systems).
Presumptions are sometimes categorized into two types: presumptions without basic facts, and
presumptions with basic facts. In the United States, mandatory presumptions are impermissible
in criminal cases, but permissible presumptions are allowed.
An example of presumption without basic facts is presumption of innocence.

5
An example of presumption with basic facts is Declared death in absentia, e.g., the law says if a
person has been missing for seven years or more (basic fact), that person is presumed dead.1
Presumptions are inferences which are drawn by the court with respect to the existence of certain
facts. When certain facts are presumed to be in existence the party in whose favor they are
presumed to exist need not discharge the burden of proof with respect to it. This is an exception
to the general rule that the party which alleges the existence of certain facts has the initial burden
of proof but presumptions do away with this requirement.

Presumptions can be defined as an affirmative or negative inference drawn about the truth or
falsehood of a fact by using a process of probable reasoning from what is taken to be granted. A
presumption is said to operate where certain fact are taken to be in existence even there is no
complete proof. A presumption is a rule where if one fact which is known as the primary fact is
proved by a party then another fact which is known as the presumed fact is taken as proved if
there is no contrary evidence of the same. It is a standard practice where certain facts are treated
in a uniform manner with regard to their effect as proof of certain other facts. It is an inference
drawn from facts which are known and proved. Presumption is a rule which is used by judges
and courts to draw inference from a particular fact or evidence unless such an inference is said to
be disproved.2

Presumptions can be classified into certain categories:

Presumptions of fact.

Presumptions of law.

Mixed Presumptions.

Presumptions of fact are those inferences which are naturally and logically derived on the basis
of experience and observations in the course of nature or the constitution of the human mind or
springs out of human actions. These are also called as material or natural presumptions. These
presumptions are in general rebuttable presumptions.

1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption
2
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-act-documents-
contract-law-essay.php

6
 DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE
Res Gestae is a Latin word which means "things done." This is the rule of law of evidence and is
an exception to hearsay rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is a
spontaneous declaration made by a person immediately after an event and before the mind has an
opportunity to conjure a false story. It represents an exception to the hearsay rule. Res gestae is a
concept which as a matter of principle is employed in the English system of administration of
criminal justice under the name of "res gestae".

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given of fact in issue and
relevant fact described under S. 6 states:

“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 of at different
times and places.”

The principle of law embodied in S.6 is usually known as the doctrine of res gestae. Facts which
may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be
connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, when it is res gestae it can be
admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence. This section is used by lawyers as a
last resort so; there is not much case law on this section.

The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly
any time for the concoction. So, such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which
constitute the offense or at least immediately thereafter.

Res gestae includes facts which form part of the same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine
what is a transaction, when does it start and when does it end. If any fact fails to link itself with
the main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. Res gestae include
elements that fall outside of the modern hearsay definition altogether, such as circumstantial
evidence of the state of mind, so-called “verbal acts,” verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal
conduct.

Because excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the excitement flows
from the event, excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the “things done”) and hence,
admissible despite the hearsay rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsay exceptions for present-
sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence of the state of mind, and statements made
to physicians3.

Res gestae has no exact English translation. A literal translation means “something deliberately
undertaken or done”. Few areas of the common law of hearsay are in greater dispute than the
doctrine of res gestae.Dean Wigmore comments, “The phrase res gestae are, in the present state
of the law, not only entirely useless but even positively harmful… It ought therefore wholly to be
repudiated, as a vicious element in our legal phraseology. It should never be mentioned.”
3
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-res-gestae/

7
Res gestae has been defined as, “Things did, or liberally speaking, the facts of the transaction
explanatory of an act or showing a motive for acting; a matters incidental to a main fact and
explanatory of it; including acts and words which are so closely connected with a main fact as
will constitute a part of it, and without a knowledge of which the main fact might not be properly
understood, even speaking for themselves though the instinctive words and acts of participants
not the words and acts of participants when narrating the events, the circumstances, facts and
declaration which grow out of the main fact, and contemporaneous with it and serve to illustrate
its character or these circumstance which are the atomic and undersigned incidents of a particular
litigated act and are admissible when illustrative of such act.”

In Babulal v. W.I.T Ltd.,[iv] it was observed that the statement of law in section 6 of the
evidence act is usually known as Res Gestae. The literal meaning of the word ‘res’ is “everything
that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status”.

Res Gestae has been described as a term of protean significance and that there have been many
definitions of the term. No evidential problem is as shrouded in doubt and confusion as is Res
Gestae. The rule as to the admissibility of evidence known as the Res Gestae rule has been
declared to be incapable of any precise definition and it has been applied to so many different
and unrelated situations that it has been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of
Res Gestae which will serve all circumstances seems insurmountable. It would be little short of
miraculous if one single doctrine of Res Gestae would suffice for every situation.

There must be a main or principal factor transaction, and only such declarations are admissible
which grow out of the principal transaction and serve to illustrate its character, and are
contemporary with, and derive some degree of credit from it. The main transaction is not
necessarily confined to a particular point of time, but may extend over a longer or shorter period,
according to the nature and character of the transaction4.

4
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-res-gestae/

8
 ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES-GESTAE
The primary question which the judge must ask oneself is-can the possibility of concoction or
distortion is disregarded?

To answer that question the judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular
statement was made, in order to satisfy him that the event was as unusual or starting or fanatic as
to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterance was an instinctive reaction to that
event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection.

In order for the statement to be sufficiently ‘spontaneous’, it must be so closely associated with
the event which has excited the statement, that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the
declaring was still dominated by the event. Thus the judge must be satisfied that the event, which
provided the trigger mechanism for the statement, was still operative.

Quite apart for the time factor, there may be a special feature in case, which relates to the
possibility of concoction or distortion.

As to the possibility of a report on the facts narrated in the statement if only the ordinary
fallibility of human recollection is relied on, this goes to the weight to be attached to and not the
admissibility of the statement and is, therefore, a matter of jury.

To sum up, it can be laid that the test to be applied in deciding whether a hearsay statement made
by a bystander or victim indicating the identity of the attacker is admissible can be put
succinctly;

1. Was the identification relevant?

2. Was it spontaneous?
3. Was there an opportunity for concoction?
4. Was there any real possibility of error?

If the exited utterance is relevant, the statement will be admissible if the answer to the second
question is also yes, and the answer to the other question is no,38 otherwise the statement is
inadmissible. A statement may be spontaneous even though made in response to questioning.

In a case, the accused had killed his wife and daughter. The deposition by the father of the
deceased that the father of the accused made a telephone call to him and said that his son had
killed the deceased was found to be not admissible. The question before the court was that was
that can the deposition of the accused father beadmitted under S. 6 as a hearsay exception being
part of Res Gestae?

In the absence of finding as to whether the information given by accused father to father of the
deceased that accused had killed his wife and daughter, was either at the time of the commission
of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form part of the same transaction declined to
accept the evidence as relevant under section 6.

9
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao the appreciable interval between
the act of carnage and magistrate’s recording the statement recorded by the magistrate was found
inadmissible under res gestae.

In Bishna vs. State of West Bengal, where the two witnesses reached the place of occurrence
immediately after the incident had taken place and found the dead body of Prankrishna and
injured Nepal in an unconscious state. One of them found the mother of Prannkrishna and Nepal
weeping and heard about the entire incident from an eye-witness and the role played by each of
the appellants, their testimony was held to be admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

In all the cases mentioned above the test applied to make the evidence admissible was to
consider that was the statement was made at the spur of the moment without an opportunity to
concoct and fabricate anything. Where the judges are satisfied that the reaction was the most
immediate result of the circumstances being relevant to the facts in issue, they have allowed such
evidence to be admitted.

10
 EXPANSION OF THIS DOCTRINE

Courts have slowly broadened the scope of this section to cases like domestic violence, child
witness etc.

Domestic violence and assault cases necessarily involve a startling event; they often include the
issue of excited utterances. In these cases, it is only victims who can identify the alleged culprit.
So such testimony of the victims must be admitted.

In India, women may not react just after the crime of rape or sexual violence because they are
under the influence of such gruesome event that they do not respond immediately. It is possible
that they respond after a day or two but such statement spoken can still be admitted under res
gestae. If it can be proved that the victim was still under the stress of shock then such a statement
can be admitted.

Usually, cases of rape take place in isolation. So there is no eye witness to such an event. Rape
and domestic violence cases are different than any other crime.

The testimony of children is often the subject of excited utterance debate. Usually, whenever
there is a time gap, the transaction is said to end and any statement which does not form part of
the transaction is inadmissible. However, in cases of children, this rule is relaxed. The rationale
for expanding the exception for children emphasizes how children cope with stress because their
statements are often made well after events occur at the first safe opportunity to speak.

In Uttam Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the child witness was sleeping with the deceased
father at the relevant time of the incident and was awakened by the sound of the fatal blow of the
axe on the neck of the deceased. Seeing it, the child shouted to his mother for help by naming the
accused as the assailant.

On hearing the sounds the mother and sisters of the child and other witnesses gathered at the
spot. This evidence was held to be admissible as a part of the same transaction as such shout was
the natural and probable as per the facts of the case. In this case, if child witness failed to react
on the spot but spoke later, it could still be admissible under sec 65.

Usually, the evidence is brought under res gestae when it cannot be brought under any other
section of the Indian evidence act. The intention of law makers was to avoid injustice, where
cases are dismissed due to lack of evidence. If any statement is not admissible under sec. 6 it can
be admissible under Sec.157 as corroborative evidence.

Court has always minded that this doctrine should never be expanded to an unlimited extends.
That is why Indian courts have always considered the test of “continuity of the transaction”. Any
statement which was made after a long time gap and which was not a reaction to the event is not
admissible under Sec.6 of the Evidence Act.

5
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-res-gestae/.

11
But courts have permitted certain statement which was spoken after a long time gap from the
occurrence of the transaction because there was sufficient proof that the victim was still under
the stress of excitement and so whatever was said was as a reaction to the event.

The strength of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. The word transaction used in this section is not
distinct. It varies from case to case. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its
own merit. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible
under sec. 6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the Judge.

12
 PRESUMPTION OF COURT

Presumptions are inferences which are drawn by the court with respect to the existence of certain
facts. When certain facts are presumed to be in existence the party in whose favor they are
presumed to exist need not discharge the burden of proof with respect to it. This is an exception
to the general rule that the party which alleges the existence of certain facts has the initial burden
of proof but presumptions do away with this requirement.

Presumptions can be defined as an affirmative or negative inference drawn about the truth or
falsehood of a fact by using a process of probable reasoning from what is taken to be granted. A
presumption is said to operate where certain fact are taken to be in existence even there is no
complete proof. A presumption is a rule where if one fact which is known as the primary fact is
proved by a party then another fact which is known as the presumed fact is taken as proved if
there is no contrary evidence of the same. It is a standard practice where certain facts are treated
in a uniform manner with regard to their effect as proof of certain other facts. It is an inference
drawn from facts which are known and proved. Presumption is a rule which is used by judges
and courts to draw inference from a particular fact or evidence unless such an inference is said to
be disproved.

Presumptions can be classified into certain categories:

Presumptions of fact.

Presumptions of law.

Mixed Presumptions.

Presumptions of fact are those inferences which are naturally and logically derived on the basis
of experience and observations in the course of nature or the constitution of the human mind or
springs out of human actions. These are also called as material or natural presumptions. These
presumptions are in general rebuttable presumptions.

Presumptions of law are those inferences which are said to be established by law. It can be
subdivided into rebuttable presumptions of law and irrebuttable presumptions of law. Rebuttable
Presumptions of law are those presumptions of law which hold good until they are disproved by
evidence to the contrary. Irrebuttable Presumptions of Law are those presumptions of law which
are held to be conclusive in nature. They cannot be overturned by any sort of contrary evidence
however strong it is.

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with three categories of presumptions

Discretionary Presumptions

Mandatory Presumptions

Conclusive Proof

13
The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act which deal with Discretionary Presumptions relating to
documents are sections 86, 87, 88, 90 and 90-A. These Presumptions are those in which the
words may presume are used in the sections and the words may presume is used signifies that the
courts of law have discretion to decide as to whether a presumption is allowed to be raised or
not. In the case of such presumptions the courts of law will presume that a fact is proved unless
and until it is said to be disproved before the court of law or it may call for proof of a fact
brought before it. The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act which deal with Mandatory
Presumptions are Section 79, 80, 80-A, 81, 82, 83 85 and 89. These Presumptions are those in
which the words shall presume is used. In case of such presumptions the courts of law will
presume that a fact before it is proved until and unless it is disproved. The words shall presume
signify that the courts have to mandatorily raise a presumption and such a presumption which is
raised shall be considered to be proved unless and until the presumption is said to be disproved
and there is no discretion left to the court therefore there is no need for call of proof in this case.
It is like command of the legislature to the court to raise a presumption and the court has no
choice but to do it. The similarity between discretionary and mandatory presumptions is that both
are rebuttable presumptions6.

Conclusive Proof is defined under Section 4 that one fact is said to be conclusive proof of
another fact when the court shall on the proof of a certain fact regard another fact to be proved
and the court shall not allow any evidence which shall to be given for the purpose of disproving
such a fact. Conclusive Proof is also known as Conclusive Evidence. It gives certain facts an
artificial probative effect by law and no evidence shall be allowed to be produced which will
combat that effect. It gives finality to the existence of a fact which is sought to be established.
This generally occurs in cases where it is in the larger interest of society or it is against the
governmental policy. This is an irrebuttable presumption.

The general rule about burden of proof is that it lies on the party who alleges the fact to prove
that the fact exists. But a party can take advantage of the presumptions which are in his favor. If
the prosecution can prove that the conditions of a presumption are fulfilled and such a
presumption is of rebuttable nature then the burden of prove to rebut it is always on the party
who wants to rebut it.

6
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-act-documents-
contract-law-essay.php#ftn4.

14
 DISCRETIONARY PRESUMPTIONS
Discretionary presumptions are those presumptions where the discretion is left to the court
whether or not to raise the presumption. The provisions in which the words “may presume” are
used are discretionary presumptions. The discretionary presumptions relating to documents are
provided under Sections 86, 87, 88, 90 and 90-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 86 lays
down the principle that the court may make a presumption relating to the genuineness and
accuracy of a certified copy of a judicial record of any foreign country if the said document is
duly certified in accordance with the rules which are used in that country for certifying copies of
judicial records. The presumption under this section is permissive and imperative in nature and
hence should be complied with. But the court has the discretion to decide whether the
presumption should be raised or not. If there is no certificate under this section then a foreign
judgment is not admissible as evidence in court. But this does not mean that it excludes other
proof. It is not necessary that the foreign judgment should have already been admitted as
evidence so as to give rise to this presumption.

The presumption under Section 87 is related to the authorship, time and place of the book or map
or chart and not related to accuracy or correctness of facts contained in the book, map or chart.
The accuracy of the information in the map, book or chart is not conclusive but in the absence of
contrary evidence it is presumed to be accurate. The accuracy of the information in a map or a
chart depends on the source of information. The age of the publication is also not important the
court can refer to any publication as long as it is relevant to the suit brought before it.

The presumption under Section 88 is based on the principle that the acts of official nature are
performed in a regular manner. Under this section the court accepts hearsay statement as
evidence about the identity of the message which was delivered. The requirement under this
section that no presumption shall be made with regard to the person who has delivered the
message for the purpose of transmission is mandatory and should be necessarily complied with.
This presumption only operates if the message has been delivered to the addressee otherwise the
message is not held to be proved. This presumption applies only those messages which are
transmitted to the addressee through the telegraphic office. This presumption also applies to
radio messages.7

Section 90 deals with presumption relating to ancient documents or documents which are 30
years old. The basis of Section 90 is the principle of convenience and necessity. The basic
objective of this section is to reduce any difficulties faced by persons who want to prove the
handwriting, execution and attestation of ancient documents for establishing their case.

Under this section the court may make the following presumptions with respect to ancient
documents: a) the signature and every part of handwriting of such a person and b) that the
document was duly executed and attested by the person it is supposed to be executed and
attested. The presumption under this section does not apply to other aspects of the document like
its contents or its authenticity.

7
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-act-documents-
contract-law-essay.php#ftn15.

15
The presumption under this section applies to all the documents which come under the definition
given under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It applies to books of accounts, testamentary
documents, private and public documents. This presumption does not apply to anonymous
documents.

For the presumption under Section 90 to be applicable the following conditions have to be
fulfilled:

The document should be proved or purported to be 30 or more years old. There must be some
evidence or at least a prima facie case should be made out to support that the document is 30
years old. This is however a rebuttable presumption. Ancient documents can be read as evidence
without any formal proof. The period of 30 years is commuted from the date of the execution of
the document to the date on which it is put as evidence.

16
 CONCLUSION
Supreme Court in Punjabrao v. D P Meshram, AIR 1965 SC 1179, held that the Evidence of
the conversion of a member of Scheduled Caste to Buddhism may be corroborated by the
Evidence of his conduct subsequent to his conversion. In Pershadi v. State , AIR 1957 SC 211,
held that in a case of murder soon after the murder the accused who had earlier held out of a
threat to the victim told the father of the victim that he had a hand in this appearance of the
accused, is Admissible u/s. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Supreme Court in Chander Kala v. Ram Kishan, AIR SC 1268, held that when the
complainant narrated the incident to the relative of the deceased and he deposed to that effect in
Court, such Evidence is Admissible in Evidence.
In state of Andhra Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan, AIR 2000 SC 2138 , held that when the
accused murdered his wife and daughter, the statement by the father of the deceased wife that
father of the accused told him on telephone that his son has killed the deceased. Absence of a
finding as to whatever information given by accused's father to the deceased's father that the
accused had killed the deceased was either of the time of commission of the crime or
immediately thereafter. So as to form the part of the same transaction, the statement cannot be
considered as relevant u/s. 6.
A legal presumption is a conclusion based upon a particular set of facts, combined with
established laws, logic or reasoning. It is a rule of law which allowing a court to assume a fact is
true until it is rebutted by the greater weiht (preponderance) of the evidence against it.
Examples of legal presumptions, among others, include:
1. A child born of a husband and wife living together is presumed to be the natural child of the
husband.
2. A person who has disappeared and not been heard from for seven years is presumed to be dead.
3. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
These presumptions may be rebutted by proof such as:
1. a DNA test conclusively proving the husband is not the father,
2. the missing person is found alive, and
3. a verdict based upon the evidence at trial convicts the defendant.
A legal presumption is distinguished from a presumption of fact, which is an argument of a fact
from a fact; an inference as to drawn regarding an unknown fact based upon a known fact. This
inference may derive from a past history of their connection; assuming the truth or real existence
of something despite a lack of direct or positive proof of the fact, but grounded on circumstantial
or probable evidence which makes it believable.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
BOOKS
Batuk Lal , The Law of Evidence(2015) ISBN-13:978-9384852214
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Rattan Lal & Dhiraj Lal , “The Law of Evidence”, 20th Nagpur : Wadhwa & Company, 2004
Sarkar M.C. and S.C. Sarkar, “Law of Evidence”, 16 th Ed., Nagpur: Wadhwa & Company,
2007
Singh, Avtar, “Principles of Law of Evidence”, 14th Ed., Allahabad: Central Law Publication,
2004.

SECONDARY SOURCES:
WEBSITES
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1029/5/Res-Gestae-Section-6-Indian-Evidence-
Act-1872
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2501/Doctrine-of-Res-Gestae.html
https://legaldictionary.net/7413-2/
https://www.google.com/search?q=presumption+of+the+court&rlz=1C1ASUC_enIN789IN789
&oq=PRE&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60j69i59j69i57j0.2837j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption

18
19