PROJECT

ON

DOCTRINE OF RES
GESTAE

NISHA
00616503812
B.A.LLB
5th sem
 RES GESTAE
Res gestae (a Latin phrase meaning "things done") is an exception to the rule against
Hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made
naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave
little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (i.e. by the
witness who will later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that such
statements carry a high degree of credibility. Statements which can be admitted into evidence
as Res gestae fall into three headings:
1. Words or phrases which either form part of, or explain a physical act,
2. Exclamations which are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and
3. Statements which are evidence as to someone's state of mind.
(In some jurisdictions the Res gestae exception has also been used to admit police sketches.)

The principle underlying S.6, the following is sometimes termed as res gestae. This phrase
means simply a transaction, “thing done”, “the subject matter”, “res gestae” of any case
properly consists of that portion of actual world’s happenings out of the right or liability,
complained or asserted in the proceeding, necessarily, arises. Apparently the phrase is well
established in the Law of Evidence. It is necessary therefore, to understand what it really
means. That has been used in two senses. In the restricted sense it means world’s happening
out of which the right or liability in question arises. In wider sense it covers all the probative
facts by which res gestae are reproduced to the tribunal where the direct evidence of witness
or perception by the court is unattainable. In restricted meaning res gestae imports the
conception of action by some person producing the effects for which the liability is sought to
be enforced in action. To be clear, in the restricted sense “facts which constitute the res
gestae must be such as so connected with the very transaction or fact under investigation as
to constitute a part of it.”

Whatever act or series of acts constitute, or in point of time immediately accompany and
terminate in. The principal act charged as an offence against the accused from its inception to
its consummation and whatever may be said by either of the parties during the continuance
of the transaction, with reference to it, including herein what may be said by the suffering
party, though in absence of the accused during the continuance of the action or the latter,
form part of the principal transaction and may be given in evidence as part of res gestae of it.
While, on the other hand, statements made by the complaining party, after all action on the
part of wrong-doer has ceased and some time has elapsed do not form part of res gestae and
should be excluded.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that, “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.”

3.1) Principle
This section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the technical
expression res gestae [i.e., the things done (including words spoken) in the course of a
transaction], but such facts must ‘form part of the same transaction.’ If facts form part of the
transaction which is the subject of enquiry, manifestly evidence of them ought not to be
excluded. The question is whether they do form part or are too remote to be considered really
part of the transaction before the Court. A transaction is a group of facts so connected
together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime a contract, a wrong or any
other subject of inquiry which may be in issue. Roughly, a transaction may be described as
any physical act, or a series of connected physical acts, together with the words
accompanying such act or acts. Every fact which is part of the same transaction as the fact in
issue is deemed to be relevant to the fact in issue although it may not be actually in issue, and
although if it were not part of the same transaction it might be excluded as hearsay.

3.2) Test For Res Gestae

In Article 3 of his Digest of the Law of Evidence, Sir James Stephen defines a “transaction”
as; “a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a
crime, a contract, a wrong, or ant other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.”
Suppose A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club. Here the transaction is the
crime of murder. That A beat B with a club, that A caused B’s death, that A had an intention
of causing B’s death are all in issue and form parts of the same transaction, and evidence can
always be given of such facts in issue under Section 5. But the words uttered by A at or about
the time of beating, or words uttered by B or by persons standing by, at or about the time of
beating, are not in issue. But they also form parts of the same transaction. No one beats
another silently, nor would the person beaten be silent while he was being beaten, nor would
persons standing by watch silently. The transaction includes all these utterances and, though
not in issue, form part of the transaction of murder, which is the subject of enquiry, and
therefore are relevant under this section.

The section provides that if a part of the transaction is a fact in issue, then evidence can be
given of every other part of the transaction either because such other part is also in issue and
therefore evidence of it is permissible under S.5, or because such other part is relevant under
S.6, and therefore, under S.5 evidence can be given of it. The question that arises is how to
find out whether a fact forms part of the same transaction as the fact in issue. The various
tests suggested are as follows:

(a) If the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given stand in the
relation of cause and effect or effect and cause, then they can be said to form part of the same
transaction. This test however is useless because every event is the effect of innumerable
effects. If all these causes and effects are to be treated as relevant and evidence is permitted
to be given of all these facts, the whole purpose of restricting the evidence in a court of law
to relevant facts would be lost. The time of the court will wasted in listening to evidence of
remote causes and distant effects.
(b) Another test suggested is, facts connected by proximity of time and place would come
under the section. No doubt facts happening at about the same time and place can be treated
as closely connected and therefore relevant under the section. But this is not enough, because
the section itself contemplates the possibility of facts happening at different times and places,
being connected with the fact in issue, so as to form part of the same transaction.
(c) A third test suggested is that there should be a continuity of purpose and action running
through the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given. This, it is
submitted, is equally useless, as merely substituting one vague phrase for another.
In the English Law system, we come across a phrase res gestae which is equivalent to the
facts mentioned in Section 6. But, unfortunately, that phrase is not always used with that
meaning. We also find it used in the following senses: (i) as equivalent to the fact in issue,
(ii) as equivalent to the details of the fact in issue, and (iii) the fact in issue and surrounding
circumstances. This being so, it is the general opinion of all authorities on the law of
evidence that this phrase should be avoided completely. While there is so much ambiguity in
the meaning of the phrase, to look for a test for facts which are res gestae, would be looking
for the proverbial needle. The truth of the matter is that it is left to the presiding Judge, who,
guided by previous decisions and his own experience, feels instinctively that there is the
necessary connection, and treats the facts as relevant. One test, however, is accepted with
respect to words uttered at the time of the happening of the fact in issue. That test is that the
utterance must be spontaneous as well as contemporaneous with the fact in issue. If it is
possible that it might have been thought out and therefore not spontaneous, then it will not be
relevant evidence under this section.

Res Gestae- the subject matter of ss.6, 7, 8, and 9 and also of s.14 are treated in English
and American books under the head of Res Gestae. It is necessary to have a clear idea of the
term which is frequently found in all books on Evidence and is freely used in judgments.
Acts, declarations and incidents accompanying or explaining he transaction or facts in issue
or which themselves constitutes the facts or transaction in issue are considered as part of the
Res Gestae and admitted as original evidence and not hearsay. Thus the exclamations,
statements and complaints of an injured party or the complaint of a raped woman
immediately before, during or after the occurrence are relevant. These spontaneous
declarations accompanying an act are sometimes called “verbal acts.”
The principle of law embodied in Sec.6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of
res gestae recognized in English law. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though
not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction”
becomes relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that
hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement on fact
admissible under S.6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediately
of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But, it is necessary that such fact or
statement must be part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have
been made contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or atleast
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.

3.3) Admissibility Depends On Continuity Of The Transaction

It will appear from what is said above that the declarations or acts are not admissible unless
they form part of the transaction in controversy, i.e, they must be substantially
contemporaneous with the fact in issue must tend to illustrate and explain it. The
admissibility of the declaration or act as part of the transaction depends on continuity of
action as also proximity of time and community of purpose. The following cases illustrate
the rule in this section:
Abduction
In a trial for abduction, a witness stated that he had seen three women, who were sleeping in
the same bari as the complainant and his wife, searching something at dusk. The women
were not examined and when the witness was asked what reply one of these gave, the judge
rightly excluded the evidence. The alleged search that evening cannot be treated as part of
the same transaction as the abduction at night; so S.6 cannot make it admissible and as the
women were neither parties to the case nor agents, S.8 is of no help. S.9 is equally
inapplicable.
Adoption
In the majority of cases execution of a deed of adoption forms a part of the transaction of
adoption itself and is relevant under S.6.
Felony
Generally speaking, it is not competent to a prosecution to prove a man guilty of one felony
by proving him guilty of another unconnected felony, but where several felonies are
connected together and form part of one entire transaction, the one is evidence to show the
character of the other.
Illegal Gratification
Receipt of illegal gratification in the years 1877 and 1878 cannot be proved in order to
establish that he received the three sums of money mentioned in the charges for which he
was tried. The two sets of transactions are not so connected as would make them relevant to
one another. S.6 cannot apply, because the payments of 1877 and 1878 are not so connected
with the facts in issue in this case as to form part of the same transaction.
Murder and Dacoity
In the absence of any explanation, the presumption arises that any one who took part in a
robbery also took part in the murder which constituted part of the same transaction. It has
been held that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be
presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be
evidence against him on the charge of murder where murder and robbery form parts of one
transaction.
Rape
In rape, indecent assault and cries or complaint to any one made during or immediately after
occurrence, is admissible as part of the transaction. Such evidence is also admissible as
conduct. The statement is admissible not as evidence of the truth of the charge, but as
evidence of the credibility of the complainant. Where the raped girl made a statement to her
mother after the rape when the culprit had gone away and the girl came home from the scene
of occurrence, it is not admissible under S.6 as part of the transaction.
Statement of injured person, accused or by-stander
If a witness survives after making dying declaration his statement relevant and admissible as
res gestae under S.6. Where a person cried out on receiving gun-shot injuries and two
persons, who immediately reached the spot, were told by the victim that his nephew had fired
at him, the court allowed this evidence as part of res gestae being spontaneously connected
with the transaction.
Statement to police
If on A’s information a criminal proceeding is started against B and in the course of
investigation into the case A makes a statement to the police, in a subsequent prosecution
under Ss.192, 193 and 221 IPC, it is admissible as res gestae.
Unlawful assembly
Statements made by members of unlawful assembly of their determination to force their way
through a police cordon are evidence of res gestae.
Other cases
Statements made by a testator at the registration of the will are admissible.