Section 6 deals with relevancy of facts.

They describe the various ways in which facts though not in

issue are so related to each other as to form part components of the principal fact. There are facts
which are related to each other as to form components of the principal fact.
In PP v Ahmad bin Ibrahim 2011 MLJU 921, the court held that a transaction may constitute a single
incident occupying a few moments or it may be spread over a variety of acts, declarations, occupying
a much longer time and occurring on different occasions. They may also occur at the same place or
different places. All these constituent incidents which though not strictly constituting a fact in issue,
accompany and tend to explain and qualify the fact in issue. They form a chain as it were encircling
the fact in issue. All the these facts are relevant to the fact in issue and therefore admissible in
evidence. They are evidentially facts which render the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue
highly probable.
In order that that different acts may constitute the same transaction, they must be connected:
“i. by proximity of time; ii. unity or proximity of place; iii. continuity of action and continuity
of purpose or design”
Whether the connection is sufficient to make a fact or facts part of the transaction or is too remote
must always depend on the circumstances of each case. S. 6 should be read together with s. 7, 8 and 9.
Amrita Lal Hazra v Emperor the criteria of unity of time and place is relevant, which forms part of the
transaction which must be connected together. Besides that there must be a continuity of action and
the community of purpose and design. This case was followed by the case of Jaafar Hussain v PP
where, the accused was charged of two offence, carrying a gun and a hand-grenade at the same time
and place. At the trial the judge directed that the accused be charged of carrying a hand--grenade only.
Evidence that the accused was carrying a gun was admitted during the trial. This was objected on
appeal. It was held that the evidence was rightly admitted as both the facts are so closely connected
together so as to form on transaction. If one act forms a part of the same transaction with another act
that is in issue, then the former is admissible even if it discloses that the accused is guilty of another
offence. In another case of Ratten v Regina [1971] 3 All ER 801, there was ample evidence of the
close and intimate connection between the statement ascribed to the deceased and the shooting which
occurred very shortly afterwards. They were closely associated in place and in time. The way in which
the statement came to be made (in a call for the police) and the tone of voice used, showed
intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the deceased by an overwhelming pressure of
contemporary event. It carried its own stamp of spontaneity and this was endorsed by the proved time
sequence and the proved proximity of the deceased to the appellant with his gun. Similarly, in cases
involving a bystander, and in order to make the statement of a bystander admissible in evidence as a
part of res gestae it must have been made as contemplated by s. 6 and illus. a) to it at the time the
transaction was taking place or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction. If the
transaction has ended and then the statement is made, the statement is irrelevant. Regarding the
essence of time, in the case of Tan and Leong v PP and also supported in the case of Aziz bin
Muhamad Din v PP, in which, evidence which spans a period of 4 days cannot be admitted as part of
res gestae. In this case, the foundation was based on the oral evidence of PW1 on statements allegedly
made by informers of there separate days. In another case of Rattan v The Queen, the Privy Council
dealt with the admissibility of the statement of a telephone operator who received a call from the
deceased minutes before she was allegedly murdered by her husband. The Council characterised the
statement as original evidence of ‘verbal facts’, as opposed to hearsay evidence, as the object of
admitting the statement was not to establish the truth of the statement made, but merely to establish
the fact that it was made. The court further said that the evidence would be admissible as part of the
res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and
the shooting but also the way in which the stement came to be made, in a call for the police and the
tone of the voice used showed intrinsically that the stament was being forced from the wife over
overwhelming pressure of contemporary events.
On the other hand, Section 9 of the Evidence Act discusses about facts necessary to explain or
introduce relevant facts.
 “Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or
rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any
thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or
relevant fact happened or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted,
are relevant so far as they are necessary for that purpose.”
Identification in particular can be seen in the case of Lai Ah Kam & Anor v Rex [1939] 1 MLJ 306 in
which, on the date of the robbery which was some days before the arrest Ng Poh Eng picked out a
photograph of the accused. There is no objection to a witness being shown a number of photographs
and being asked if she can recognise one as that of a wanted man who has not been arrested. The
examination, without any prompting, of a number of photographs is in itself a kind of identification
parade. When it is done to assist the police to effect an arrest, there is no objection to it provided
nothing has been done by the police to suggest that a particular photo may be that of the wanted men.
By applying the law, the statement given by Hafizi can be regarded as res gestae under Section 6 of
the Evidence Act because it forms a part of the same transaction since Hafizi has heard a man
shouting which he believes is Thuraisamy (D), and that he got into the car and left. This statement
made by Hafizi is admissible and should be read together with Section 9 of the Evidence Act in which
it will become a fact necessary to rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue. This is due to the
contradiction with the fact in issue that Thuraisamy while making U Turn, hit and ran Sheila (P), as
claimed by Sheila but adheres to the fact that Thuraisamy drove on that day. Hence, the statement
made by Hafizi is relevant and admissible.
The statement made by Nicholas is inadmissible as it does not form the same transaction with the fact
in issue because according to the case of Amrita Lal Hazra v Emperor the criteria of unity of time and
place is relevant, which forms part of the transaction which must be connected together. Besides that
there must be a continuity of action and the community of purpose and design. However, Nicholas’s
statement does not fulfill the criteria of time and place as it does not closely related to the fact in issue
which is Thuraisamy hitting and running over Sheila. It was only said that he was not in the office and
went off angrily and that fact does not form the same transaction as the fact in issue. The statement
made by Nicholas is irrelavant and inadmissible.
The statement given by Bandi is inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as it does not form
the same transaction as to fact in issue. The statement given by Bandi was the inquiry of a mechanic
shop by Thuraisamy for the office car as it was damaged due to a pothole on the day of the inccident.
However, phone calls are considered as hearsay evidence and the general rule for hearsay evidence is
that it is inadmissible. However, exception t phone calls evidence forming res gestae can be seen in
the case of Ratten v The Queen, which requires a close association between the time and place
between the fact in issue and the statement made through the phone call. In the present situation, the
phone call made to Bandi could not be regarded as forming the part of the same transaction as it was
not made in the close proximity and time of the fact in issue. Henceforth, it is a hearsay evidence and
not res gestae, thus, irrelavant and inadmissible.
4.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement made by Hafizi is relevant and admissible. The statement made by
Nicholas and Bandi is irrelavant and inadmissible.