SAHIL Mazak udyga aur bolega ye likha h, ye bhejne me itna time lagaya tu,

doob ke marrrja!!

Q1. What is the difference logical relevant and legal relevant facts? Explain with examples. Is Res gestae
different from rule of hearsay evidence? Explain with examples/cases?

Answer: The Indian Evidence is very important for our country. This is because our country follows the
Due Process Model, which opposite of the crime control model where the police and court play an
active role in solving the veracity of the allegations made. In the Due Process Model, it is the parties of
the suit on whom the burden of proof is vested. Thus it is very important to have a guideline for the
submission of evidence. The term fact has been described under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. As
per section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Fact means and includes- anything, state of things, or relation
of things, capable of being perceived by the senses OR any mental condition of which any person is
conscious. For the purposes in the evidence act it is not confined to the tangible nature even the
feelings, state of mind and personal opinions are construed under the broad umbrella of facts.

RELEVANT FACTS
Relevant Fact under the Indian Evidence act:
The act does not give any definition of word "relevant". It only lays down that a fact becomes relevant
only when it is connected with other facts in any of the ways referred to, in this Act relating to the
relevancy of facts. Under Chapter II, section 5 to 55 deal with the relevancy of facts. A fact in order to be
relevant fact must be connected with the fact in issue or with any other relevant fact in any of the ways
referred to in Sections 5 to 55. A fact not so connected is not a relevant fact. The scheme of the Act
seems to make all relevant facts admissible.

Logically relevant and legally relevant

When a fact is connected with another fact, it is logically relevant but it is relevant if the law declares it
to be relevant. If it is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible in evidence. "Every fact
that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily
legally relevant." Under the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be relevant to another when it is relevant
under the provisions of Sections 6 to 55 of Evidence Act.

Relevancy, as applied to evidence, must be understood as touching upon issue which parties have made
by their pleadings so as to assist in getting at the truth of the disputed facts. Whatever evidence will
withstand this text should not be objected to. In the case of "State of UP v. Raj Narain" where it was
held that not all relevant facts are admissible .The case of "Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar" is a very
important case which helps us to understand the concept of clearing the two hurdles and the distinction
between relevancy and admissibility. The force of the section lies in the last four words where it is
meant that relevancy is actually the test of admissibility. The Supreme Court in this case said that in
most cases the two words admissibility and relevancy are used interchangeably with each other but
their legal implication are very different because often relevant facts such as communication between
the spouses in marriage is important but not legally admissible.
Difference b/w:
1.The first and foremost distinction between the two is that admissibility of the evidence is strictly based
on the strict questions of law whereas the relevancy is not a question of law rather it is based on the
probability and the logic.

2. The next fundamental difference between the two is the basic feature of the two. That is admissibility
decides whether relevant evidence has to be admitted or not whereas the relevancy declares whether
the evidence is logically relevant to the facts of the given case.

3. Logically relevant facts are the most important for the purpose of the solving of a case because they
seem very logically connected to the issue however due to some reason they are not legally admissible
under the Indian Evidence Act.

"Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be
necessarily legally relevant."

Res gaestae and rule of hearsay

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 anytime 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.

According to Black’s Dictionary, res gestae meant “things done . . . things or things happened . . . words
spoken, thoughts expressed, and gestures made, all . . . so closely connected to occurrence or event in
both time and substance as to be a part of the happening. . . .[That is, the] whole of the transaction
under investigation and every part of it.

Example: For instance if 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 be admitted 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 6.70 In State of Andhra Pradesh vs Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao71 the
appreciable interval between the act of carnage and magistrate’s recording the statement the
statement recorded by the magistrate was found inadmissible under res gestae.

The principal of admissibility of declarations accompanying acts can be summarized as;65 1. 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. 2. The declaration must be substantially
contempororaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past. 3. The declaration and the act
may be by the same person, or they may be by different person, e.g., the declarations of the victim,
assailant and by standers. In conspiracy, riot the declarations of all concerned in the common object are
admissible. 4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act,
declaration are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.

Usually evidence is brought under res gestae when it can not be brought under any other section of
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. 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.