Lecture-6

Res gestae…contd.
 Sec.7
• Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause
or effect of facts in issue.
• The section reads: “Facts which are the
occasion, cause or effect, immediate or
otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue,
or which constitute the state of things under
which they happened, or which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or
transaction, are relevant”.
  

(a) The question is, whether A robbed

Illustration B.
The facts that, shortly before the
Illustration(a)
robbery B went to a fair with money in
indicates: of facts
which form the state
his possession, and that he showed it
of things in which a or mentioned the fact that he had it,
fact in issue, namely, to third persons, are relevant.
 
that B was robbed,
happened
(b) The question is, whether A
murdered B.
Illustration(b)indicates
: of facts which are the Marks on the ground, produced by a
effects of the fact in struggle at or near the place where
issue, namely, that B the murder was committed, are
died a violent death; relevant facts.
 
 (c) The question is,
Illustration…cond. whether A poisoned B.
Illustration (c) The state of B's health
shows how before the symptoms
facts which ascribed to poison and
afford an habits of B, known to A,
opportunity which afforded an
would be opportunity for the
relevant administration of poison,
are relevant facts.
 
 Analysis…cond.

• Modes of connection are:

• as being the Occasion;
• as being the Cause;
• as being its effect;
• as constituting a state of things under which it
happened;
• as giving opportunity for its occurrence.
Spencer Cooper’s Trial (13 How St. Tr. 1162)

• Facts in issue were:

• Whether the deceased was killed outside and
the body thrown into water, or
• She jumped into water and died of drowning.
Cause, occasion and effect
 Cond.

• Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v The State of Maharashtra

1968 AIR 147, R.M. Malkani v. State, AIR 1973 SC
157; Ziyauddin v. Brijmohan, AIR 1975 SC 1788
• The Supreme Court observed that, like a photograph
of a relevant incident, a contemporaneous tape
record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact
admissible under sec. 7.
• The process of tape recording offers an accurate
method of storing and later reproducing sounds.
• The imprint on the magnetic tape is the direct effect
of the relevant sources. Thus, if a statement is
relevant, an accurate tape record of the statement is
also relevant and admissible.
• If a statement is relevant, an accurate tape record
of the statement is also relevant and admissible.
• The time and place and accuracy of the recording
must be proved by a competent witness and the
voices must be properly identified.
• One of the features of magnetic tape recording is
the ability to erase and re-use the recording
medium. 'Because of this facility of erasure and re-
use, the evidence must be received with caution.
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the record has not been tampered with.
 R.M. Malkani v. State
• Tape recorded conversation is admissible,
provided first the conversation is relevant to
the matters in issue, secondly, there is
identification of the voice and thirdly, the
accuracy of the tape-recorded conversation is
proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing
the tape-recorder.
• It is also comparable to a photograph of a
relevant incident. The tape recorded
conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is
admissible under section7 of the Evidence Act.
• As a photograph taken without the knowledge
of the person photographed can become
relevant and admissible so does a tape record
of a conversation unnoticed by the talkers.
• The Court will take care in two directions in
admitting such evidence.
• First, the Court will find out that it is genuine
and free from tampering or mutilation.
• Secondly, the Court may also secures
scrupulous conduct and behaviour on behalf
of the Police.
 Ziyauddin v. Brijmohan

• The evidence relating to the appellant's speeches,

discussed fully by the High Court, consisted of :
• 1. Cassettes or tape records of the appellant's speeches.
• 2. Transcripts of tape recorded speeches prepared
shortly after tape-recording them.
• 3.Full shorthand records of speeches of the appellant
by those who heard them at meetings.
• 4.Notes and records containing summaries of the
appellant's speeches made by persons attending
meetings.
• 5.Statements of witnesses present at the meetings who
had actually heard what was said by the appellant.
 Cond.

• The tape records of speeches were "documents", as defined

by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different
footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in
evidence on satisfying the following conditions
• (a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be
duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who
knew it.
• (b)Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved
by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct
or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out
possibilities of tampering with the record.
• (c)The subject matter recorded had to be shown to be
relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence
Act.
• In our opinion the High Court had rightly relied
upon the tape recorded reproductions of the
appellant's speeches.
• It had given three grounds for considering the
tape records to be reliable and authentic:
• firstly, the tape records had been prepared and
preserved safely by an independent authority, the
police, and not by a party to the case,
• second, the transcripts from the tape records,
shown to have been duly prepared under
independent supervision and control, very soon
afterwards, made subsequent tempering with the
cassettes easy to detect; and,
• thirdly, the police had made the tape records
as parts of its routine duties in relation to
election speeches and not for the purpose of
laying any trap to procure evidence.

• after, going through the deposition of Bukhari

in Court, we find that, although he was
identified by police officers as the person who
was speaking when the relevant tape records
were made he did not, at any stage, dispute
that the tape recorded voice was his.