Res Gestae

Intro
Latin term meaning "things done"

Exception to hearsay admissibility

(generally hearsay is not admissible)

Acts may be physical as well as

psychological (like words,
expressions). Statements of
bystanders would also fall under res
gestae

Definition

Facts that are not

themselves an issue,
but are so connected
with the issue so as
to form part of the
same transaction.

Assumption
The statements made naturally,
spontaneously or w/o any deliberation
during the course of an event carry
high grade of credibility and thus the
court believes them to be true.

Illustration
A, husband of B, was beating B
outside their home and while wife
cried saying, "Don't kill me." X, Y & Z
saw and heard what A was doing and
what B said B found dead inside the
home. Whatever was said or done by A
or B or X, Y, Z (by-standers) at the
beating, or so shortly before or after it
as to form part of the transaction, is a
relevant fact.

What is Transaction?
Not defined in the act. Depends on
case to case scenarios. When a
transaction consists of several
physical acts, to constitute the same
transaction, the acts should be so
connected by the proximity of time,
place, continuity of action and
community of purpose.

Time and Place

The transactions may take place at

. The same place and same time

● Hearing the sound of a bullet
● Statement or cry of an injured
person
● Cry of the witness who see the
murder happening
● The cry for help by a person
who got attacked
● Gestures of dying person

. Different place and different

times Hamsa Kunja Vs Ragina,
1963 ML 228 (Singapore)
A, a worker beating another in a
factory. B said not to do so and
told he will report to union. A
gave a threat to B. In the
evening somewhere outside A
beat B
Whose statement is relevant under
Res Gestae?
Accused, Victim, Bystander

Do act or statement form part of the

same transaction or not?
In light of various judgements, it has
been established that there must be
nexus (connection) between words
spoken and the transaction in issue.
The statements should be
spontaneous, and no opportunity for
fabrication should be available

Regina vs Bedingfield
A woman with her throat cut came
suddenly out of a room and said to her
aunt, “oh aunt see what Bedingfield
has done to me”. It was held that this
statement was not admissible as she
said this statement after the act was
over.

Rattan vs the Queen

It was held that there should be a
close association in place and time
between the statement and act. If
there is no close association, then it
cannot be part of the same transaction

Bhairon Singh vs State of MP

Held that
● Sec 6 deals with Res Gestae.
● To constitute Res Gestae, the
facts must be immediate so as
to avoid distortion and
concoction
Eg - immediate reaction of a witness
of a crime

Chain of facts must not break

To form res gestae the main chain of
facts and circumstances must not
break. Eg - a girl is a victim of some
crime. She travels home and then
describes the events to her mother.
This will not constitute Res Gestae
because the chain of transaction has
broken and there is scope of distortion
of facts.

Vijay Vardhan Rao v State of Andhra

Pradesh
A person boards a bus carrying
inflammable liquid with the intention of
setting passengers on fire. He sets
them on fire. Many people die.
Magistrate records the statement of
witness after the commission of the
offence. Question is whether this
statement would form res gestae?
Held that the statement would not
form res gestae because the
statement was not given while the
offence was being committed.

State of AP vs Panna Satyanarayan

Man A murders wife B and daughter.
B's father gives the statement that A's
father called him and told that my son
has killed your daughter and
granddaughter. Whether these
statements would form res gestae or
not? Answer is no, because the call
could have been made after the
murder. If it was made during or
immediately after the murder it would
have formed res gestae.