INTRODUCTION OF DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE-

Section-6 of the Indian Evidence Act 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”

Res Gestae is a Latin word which means "things done." This is the rule of law of evidence and it
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.

Section 6 is on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to

the fact in issue and invokes the principle of Res Gestae. In the catena of the case Supreme
Court reiterated the section-6 refers to the common law principle of Res Gestae. The word Res
Gestae is not reflected anywhere in Indian Evidence Act. Res Gestae is a noun means a thing
done.

The aspect of section 6 are:-

1. The act may not have occurred in the same place.

2. The time gap should be very little or contemporaneous so that there is no time to fabricate or
make up a story.

3. Act of witness during the same time and same place where the offence was committed.

4. Gestures made by the victim when dying.

5. When FIR becomes Res Gestae

Transaction:
The evidence which are connected with the transaction have the highest probative and
evidency value. A transaction can be single or a general transaction. The word of Section-6 have
whether they occurred same time and place ( single transaction or different times and places )
is same transaction. In general transaction, when a transaction consists of different act.
Transaction may have defined as the sequence of the events or all part of the incident which is
systematically examined a whole and for the proper understanding not separated from as a
single act. In other words, we can say that the all the relevant parts of the events which is
connected with happening or the different parts of the whole incident as without examined all
parts no events are complete in itself. This is general meaning of the term transaction. The
transaction it starts from initial to end point of the event.

Working test for deciding a Transaction

A good working test of deciding what is a transaction is:

 Unity or proximity of place,

 Proximity of time,

 Continuity of actions, and

 Community of purpose.

Same transaction
The term ‘same transaction’ has not been defined in the Act. According to Stephen, a
transaction is a group of facts connected together to be referred to by a single legal name, a
crime, a wrong, a contract or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. The test for
determining whether the fact forms the part of same transaction or another depends upon
whether they are related to one another in point of purpose or as cause and effect or as
probable and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action.

In R v. Foster1 case, the deceased has been killed by a speeding truck, the witness had not seen
the incident but the speeding truck. The deceased stated to him what had happened with him
in the accident. The court held that the statement of the deceased to the witness to be
admissible as res gestae.

CASES
In R v. Bedingfield2case, a woman came out of her room with a cut on her throat and she
remarked ‘O dear aunt ! see what B has done to me’. The court held this statement cannot be
admissible under the rule of res gestae.

1
AIR (1834)6 C & C 325

2
AIR 1879 SC
In Ratten v. Queen3 case, 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 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.

In Ratan Singh v. State of H.P 4 case, the accused had inflicted the gun shot injury on the victim
who made a you an cry. After listening to her cries the neighbour came running to her. She was
able to explain spontaneously. The whole incident including the identity of the accused. It was
held that though neighbour had not seen the actual incident but the time gap was so minor
that it ruled out all doubt regarding spontaneity of all deceased woman statement. It was held
that there was no time and opportunity for the deceased woman to concode or distot or
fabricate the evidence. Hence, it would be taken as a part of 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.

Time and Space: Section 6 specifically provides that the fact forming part of same
transaction may occur at same time and place or at different times and places. Thus, the act or
transaction may be completed in a moment of time or, if there are connecting circumstances, it
may extend to a period of days, weeks or even months. Similarly, no limitation can be imposed
as to territorial boundaries within which the transaction must occur and it may cover the
breadth of a country.

Hearsay as Res Gesate

The doctrine of res gestae is one of the exception to the principle of hearsay. Hearsay evidence
refers to the statement by a person who has not himself seen the happening of the transaction,
but has heard about it from others. For example, a person who has himself witnessed an
accident can give evidence of it to the court. But his wife who heard about the accident from
him, cannot give evidence of it to the court, her knowledge being indirect or hearsay.

3
AIR (1971) 1 WLR 801

4
AIR 1997 SC
Supreme Court in Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P. 5, held that rule embodied in
Section 6 is an exception to general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Hearsay
evidence simply means that the person has not seen the actual happening of the incident but
he has heard it from others. As a general rule evidence must be direct and hearsay evidence is
not admissible in the court. However, if such evidence forms the part of same transaction so as
to qualify as res gestae then the evidence may be given. Doctrine of res gestae constitutes as an
exception to the principle of hearsay. In R v. Foster, the witnesses had only seen speeding
vehicle and not the incident. The injured person explained to him the nature of the accident.
The witness was allowed to give evidence of what the deceased said because it formed the part
of same transaction i.e. res gestae. Supreme Court in Sukhar v. State of U.P.6, held that for
bringing hearsay evidence within the provision of Section 6, what is required to be established
is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts. There should not be an interval which
will allow fabrication.

Test Of Admissibility Of Res Gestae

1. Whether the act exclamation or declaration is so intricately interwoven with the
principle fact or event so as to be regarded a part of the transaction.

2. Whether it clearly neglects any premediation, whether it clearly neglects any

manufacture of evidence whether the statements are spontaneous and hence make
consciously and unconsciously or was their time however it small may to be fabricated.

Principle of Admissibility of Declarations:

·The statement must explain, elucidate or characterize the incident in some manner.

·The statement must be spontaneous or contemporaneous, but not mere narrative of a

completed past event.

·The statement must be a statement of fact but not a statement of opinion.

·The statement must have been made either by a participant in the transaction or by a person
who has himself witnessed the transaction.

·The statement made by the bystander would be relevant only if it is shown that he was present
at the time of the happening of the event and witnessed the same.

Expansion of The Doctrine:

5
AIR 1996 SC 2791

6
1999 (7) JT 537
The court have often applied this doctrine in murder cases, which contain the requisite
underlying shocking event. But courts, have broadened the scope of this doctrine by applying it
in cases like domestic violence, child witness, rape etc.

In case of domestic violence or assault cases, which involves a startling event includes the issue
of excited utterances. 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 getae. If it can be proved that victim was still under the
stress of shock then such statement can be admitted. Usually cases of rape take place in
isolation. So there is no eye witness to such event. Rape and domestic violence cases are
different than any other crime. The testimony of such victims may be taken into consideration,
because only they can identify the alleged culprit.

Usually when ever there is a time gap, the transaction is said to end and any statement which
do 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 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 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
section-6.

Judicial Observations
Indian Judiciary has interpreted Res Gestae as only those statements made contemporaneously
with the event or immediately after it, but not ‘at such interval of time’ as to allow fabrication.

Conclusion:
Usually evidence is brought under Res Gestae when it cannot be brought under any section of
the Indian Evidence Act. The intention of the law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are
dismissed due to lack of evidence. Courts have always been conscious that this docrtrine should
never be expanded to an unlimited extent. 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. This doctrine is more complex and vague, this forms the loophole.