Res Gestae

Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872

Abstract- Through this short article the author wants to put forward the various aspects of the doctrine
of Res gestae as found under section 6 of The Indian Evidence Act,1872. The term has Latin origin and it
means things done or “actus”. However this meaning has underwent a metamorphosis and now it
encompasses various aspects under it. The author has tried to explore the scope and ambit of this
theory in concise form highlighting the most essential and important case laws.

The doctrine of Res gestae is portrayed under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the
following words-
“Facts which though not in issue are so connected with the facts in issue so as to form a part of the
same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times
and places" – Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Res gestae, originally was used by the Romans to mean acts done or actus. The English and
American writers described it as facts that form the same transaction. Res gestae are those facts which
automatically or naturally form a part of the same transaction.They are the acts talking for themselves.
These facts become relevant due to their association with main transaction which itself is a relevant fact
in the nature of fact in issue. Circumstantial facts are admitted as forming a part of res gestae i.e. it
being a part of original proof of what has taken place. Statements may also accompany physical
happenings like gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amounts to res gestae.

Few Illustrations-
# The cry of an in injured or wounded person.
# The cry of witness on seeing a murder happening
# The sound of a bullet being shot.
# The cry for help by the person being attacked.
# Gestures made by the person dying etc

The statements made or acts done has to be spontaneous and simultaneous to the main transaction.
They may be made or done before or after the main transaction, but the time gap has to be very little so
as to render it to be a res gestae i.e. it has to be done or made immediately before, or during or
immediately after the occurrence of the main transaction. Where time gap is enough for fabrication or
concoction, then statement or act shall not fall under section 6.

According to Section 6 the facts forming a part of the same transaction may or may not occur at the
same place or same time. For example in the case of
Ratten V. Queen[1] the victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator could connect
her to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead body from her house from
where the call was made and the time of death and the time of phone call was almost the same. The call
made to the police came under the purview of section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband’s
defence that he accidentally fired his wife.

Few case laws covering various aspects of the principle of res gestae as envisaged under section 6-
1. The act may not have occurred at the same place - Ratten V. Queen

2. The time gap should be very little OR contemporaneous so that there is no time to fabricate or make
up a story.
Sukhar V. State of UP[2] - the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an alarm. On hearing
the alarm the witness reached almost at the same time when the victim told that the accused at shot
him. The victim did not die. The accused was charged with section 307 IPC,1860 (punishment for
attempt to murder). However during the trial the victim died for some other cause. Despite being
hearsay evidence, the statement of the witness was held to be admissible as it formed a part of the
same transaction. The event of the victim being shot and the witness being told by the victim about the
accused was contemporaneous.

3. Act of witness during the same time and same place where the offence was committed-
Sawal Das V. State of Bihar.[3] - The cry of the children from the house when their mother was being
killed by their father became a part of the same transaction and therefore fell under section 6 and
became admissible as valid evidence.

4. Gestures made by the victim when dying-

Queen V. Abdullah.[4]- The gesture made by the victim who was dying, that the accused had killed her
came under the purview of res gestae.

5. When FIR becomes Res gestae- Shyam Nandan Singh V. State of Bihar[5] - An FIR was lodged soon
after the incident by persons who witnessed it. It was held to be a part of the happening so it came
under the purview of section 6.

Therefore we can see that what originally started by the Romans meant only acts done (actus) to form
res gestae, now covers all acts done or statements made during the happening of the crime, at the same
time or same place of the crime or different times at different places. All these are said to form a part of
the same transaction and thereby admissible by virtue of doctrine of res gestae u/s 6 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, 1872.