Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

SECTION 6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.

The Doctrine of Res gestae is portrayed under section 6 of the Evidence Act 1872 in the
followings words-

Facts which though is not in issue are so connected with the facts in issue so as to form a part of
the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at
different times and place .

Illustrations-

a. A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever said or done by A or B or by

the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after is as to form part of the
transaction, is a relevant fact.
b. A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed
insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and goals are broken
open, the occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general
transaction, though A may not have been presented at all of them.

Res gestae, originally used by the Romans to mean acts done or actus. The English and
American writers described it as facts that form the same transaction. Res gestae are
those facts which automatically or naturally form a part of the same transaction.they
are the acts talking for themselves. These facts becomes relevant due to their
association with main transaction which itself is a relevant fact in the nature of the fact
in issue. Circumstantial facts are admitted as forming a part of Res gestae i.e it being a
part of original proof of what has taken place. Statements may also accompany physical
happenings like gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amouts to res
gestae.

Few Illustrations-

a. The cry of an in injured or wounded person.

b. The cry of witness on seeing a murder happening.
c. The sound of a bullet being shot.
d. The cry help by the person being attacked.
e. Gestures made by the person dying etc.
The statements made or acts done has to be spontaneous and simultaneous to the main
transaction. They may be made or done before or after the main transaction, but the time
it has to be done or
gap has to be very little so as to renderit to be a res gestae i.e
made immediately before, or during or immediately after the
occurrence of the main transaction. Where the gap is enough for fabrication or
concoction, then statement or act shall not under section 6.

According to the section 6 the facts forming a part of the same transaction may or may not
occur at the same place or same time. For example in the case of

Ratten V Queen[1] the victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator could
connect her to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead body
from her house from where the call was made and the time of the death and the time of
the phone call was almost the same. The call made to the police came under the purview of
section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband dedence that he accidentally fired his
wife.

Few case laws covering various aspects of the principle of Res gestae
as envisaged under section 6.

1. The act may not have occurred at the same place – Ratten V Queen.
2. The time gap should be very little OR contemporaneous so that there is no time to
fabricate or make up a story.

Sukhar V.state of UP[2] – the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an alarm.
On hearing the alarm the witness reached almost the same time when the victim told that
the accused at shot him. The victim did not die. The accused was charged with a section 307
IPC, 1860 ( punishment for attempt to murder). However during the trial the victim died for
some other cause. Despite being heresay evidence, the statement of the witness was held
to be admissible as it formed a part of transaction. The event of the victim being shot and
the witness being told by the victim about the accused was contemporaneous

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

Sawal Das V. State of Bihar[3] – The cry of the children from the house when their
mother was being killed by their father become a part of the same transaction and
therefore fell under section 6 and become admissible as valid evidence.
4. Gesture made by the victim when dying- Queen V.Abdullah.[4]- the gesture made
by the victim who was dying , that the accused had killed her came under the purview of
res gestae.
5. When FIR becomes Res gestae- Shyam Nandan Singh V. State of Bihar[5] – An FIR was
lodged soon after the accident by persons who witnessed it. It was held to be the part of
the happening so it came under the purview of section 6.

Bibliography
Batluk Lal, The Law of Evidence (2005)

The Law of Evidence Act, 1872

Rattan Lal & Dhiraj Lal , The law of Evidence 20th Nagpur : Wadhwa & company, 2004

Singh Avtar, principles of Law of Evidence of evidence 14th Ed., Allahabad: Central Law
publication, 2004

End - Notes
[1]. 1972 A.C 378, [1971]3 ALL ER 801, (1972) 56 Cr App R 18, [1971] 3 WLR 930

[2]. (1999) 9 SCC 507

[3]. 1994 AIR 778, 1974 SCR (3)74

[4]. (1885) ILR7 ALL 385

[5]. 1991 (39) BLJR 1298, 1991 Cri LJ 33

Why and how you justify and minority view given in Queen
Empress v. Abdullah
In Queen v.Abdullah on 27 February, 1885 question in reference was
about admissibility of section 8 or section 32 against accused where in
deceases was attacked br her throat by accused. And deceased before her
death was not able to talk but with the help of her mother who supported her
elbow narrated by way of signs (by waiving her hand) the name of accused.
Majority view was about the admissibility of section 32 but minority view was
about the admissibility of section 8.it was discussed that any conduct on the
part of the deceased in this case, which had any bearing on the circumstances
in which she met her death, would be relevant.
but the of things is this. She , being in a dying state at the hospital, made, in
the presence of certain persons, the signs would have been referred to. It is
clear that, taking these signs alone, there is nothing to show that they are
relevant, because there is nothing which connects them with the case of
death. Then it is argued that since conduct is relevant under certain
circumstances, you may with reference to explanation 2 of section 8, prove
any statements made to the person whose conduct is in question. In order to
decide this point the language of section 8 must be carefully considered. It is
to the following effect: “The conduct of any party or of any or of any agent to
any party to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or
in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct to
any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceedings, is
relevant, if such conduct influenced by the fact in issue or relevant fact, and
whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Explanation 1. The word “conduct” in this section does not include

statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than
the statements this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements
under any other section of this act.

Explanation 2. When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement

made to him or in his presence or hearing, which affects such conduct, is
relevant. “now the question here in issue is-Did Abdullah kill the deceased is,
that she moved her hand in answer to questions put to some persons in
hospital. If we went no further than this be nothing to show that her conduct
in lifting her hand either influenced or was influenced by the fact in issue, i.e.,
the cutting of her throat. Then explanation 2 is brought in: but it is obvious
that before you can let to the words of a third person, you must show that the
conduct which they are alleged to affect is relevant. And in case the present it
is clear that until you let in the words, the conduct is not relevant, and
therefore the words cannot be let in because the condition precedent to their
admissibility has not been satisfied, and that not have been done, their whole
 basis fails. Explanation 1 of section 8 points to a case in which a person whose
conduct is in dispute mixes up together actions and statements; and in such a
case those actions and statements may be proved as a whole. Where the
statement is made merely in response to some question or suggestion, it
shows a state of things introduced, not by the fact in issue, but by the
interposition of something else. For these reasons majority hold that signs
made by deceased cannot be by the way of “conduct” under section 8 of the
evidence Act

Qno.2 Discuss and explain relevancy of fact of motive;

preparation and conduct with the Latest case laws?
According to the section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the motive with which a person
commits a certain act or the preparation which he makes towards the commission of the act is
a relevant fact. The question of motive and preparation is important in case which purely rely
on circumstantial evidence. The rule of res gestae testimony is that it may be allowed when the
said testimony goes right to the root of the matter directly connected with the commission of
crime. This particular principle has been embodied in section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Motive:Motive refers to the motivation that tempts a man to do a particular act. As a general
rule, there can be no act without a motive. The voluntary actions of sane persons are always
guided by a motive. The conduct of the person is regarded as the proof for the motive. It must
be noted that motive, by itself, is not an incriminating circumstances [1] and cannot be used in
place of proof. [2] motive assumes an important role in cases relying solely on circumstantial
evidence because, in such cases, motive itself is seen as a circumstance.[3]

In Chunni V. state of U.P,[4] The accused, who expected of inheriting his childless Uncle`s
property, was frustrated when the uncle got married and had a child. The Uncle was murdered
and the accused was found to be struggling to get the property transferred in his name. these
facts where held to be relevant since they established a motive on part of the accused to
murder the accused.

Preparation: preparation refers to the act of arranging for the means and methods required
for the commission of the crime. Thus, where A is being tried for the murder of B by poison, the
fact that A had procured a similar poison prior to the murder is relevant. However, no inference
of the guilt shall arise when it has been established that the preparation so made was innocent
or was for another act which may be legal or illegal.
Conduct: A fact may be prove by scanning the conduct of a party and the surrounding
circumstances. Statements which are either explaining the conduct or are accompanying it is
also considered to be a part of the conduct itself.

In Malkani V. State of Maharastra, [5] recorded telephone conversion about the settling of the
bribe-money was held to be evidence of conduct. Absconding of an accused is relevant conduct
under the Evidence Act. However it must be noted that the act of absconding is indicative of
the guilt of the accused only to a certain extent since even innocent persons tend to abscond
due to the instinct of self-preservation. [6]

In Sunil V. State of Ragasthan, [7] the presence of the accused near the village before and after
the crime took place was held to be the evidence of conduct under section 8 of the Evidence
Act.

Conclusion:
Motive preparation and conduct are essential to prove mens rea or a guilty mind. This section is
accorded high amount of important in case of circumstantial evidence. It is due to this reason
that this section is often regarded as one of the most provisions in the Evidence Act.

Reference:
[1] Tara Devi V. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 342.

[2] State of Panjab V. Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.

[3] Varun Chaudary V. State of Rajashtan, AIR2011 SC 72.

[4] AIR 2010 SC 2467.

[5] AIR 1973 SC 157.

[6] Thamma V.State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871; Rahman V.State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 110.

[7]2001 CrLj 30363 (Raj).

Qno.3 What is the procedure to be allowed in identification

parade and how this helps courts during trail? Explain with the
help of judgments?
1. There is no provision either in criminal procedure code or the Indian Evidence Act for
holding test identification parades. They are merely tests to determine the memory of
the witness based on the first impression of the accused involved in the crime, to truly
testify that the accused was the one who is actually involved in the commission of the
offence, to which the witness figures as an eye-witness. Further, it is also aimed at, to
aid the prosecution to ensure that the investigation of the case is proceeding in the right
direction. It is not relevant at the trail as to whether the witness have identified the
accused or not, for the mere reason that the actual evidence regarding identification by
the witness in the court alone is relevant under section 9 of the Evidence act 1872. In
reality, the test of identification of the accused at an identification parade is a
circumstance which would corroborate the identification in the court.

2. The necessity to hold a test of identification parade arises only when the accused person
are not previously known to witness. The test is to check the veracity of identification of
the accused at the time of occurrence, without aid from any other source. It is more a
test of memory and the capacity of witness to remember what they saw, when they
depose in the court, at the trail. Identification tests do not constitute substantive
evidence but primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency to
assure, that it is proceeding on the right path or direction.

3. Court has repeatedly stressed the need for holding the test identification parade as soon
as possible, after the arrest of the accused. The reason for this, “is to eliminate any
possibility on the part of the accused to allege that witness had opportunity to see the
accused before the parade takes place. This make the prosecution to be vigilant, to
avoid or refute the allegation of the accused. However, there may be cases of delay,
beyond the control on the part of investigation agency and if such delay can be
explained to the satisfication of the court, it is not fatal to the prosecution case. In
Subash V. State of U.P,[3] there was delay of three weeks, after the arrest of the
accused in holding the test identification parade and there was a gap of four months
between the date of occurrence and the date of holding the identification parade and
more so, no descriptive particulars were given at the time of FIR registration, evidence
was rejected, as the witness failed to give the descriptive features when the face of the
accused for fresh in their memory. More so there was no corroborative evidence. It was
held, if the delay in holding the test identification parade for which no valid explanation
is given, the evidence cannot be acted[4]. If the deep impression on the minds of the
witnesses cannot be erased, when they had the occasion to see the culprit, it can be
acted upon, as the crime itself is capable of creating such impression[5].
4. In Lalji singh`s case,[8]it was held that there is no hard and fast rule for holding
the test identification parade, through it is desirable to hold the same as early as
possible. If the delay is inordinate and the possibility of the accused being shown to
witnesses, the court may not act on the evidence of test identification prade. In Anil
Kumar`s case,[9] a mere lapse of a few days was not enough to erase the facial
impression of the accused from the memory of the father and mother, who saw the
accused person killing their son. The earlier[10], on deep impression created by the
crime itself, was held sufficient to admit the evidence of identification.
5. In pramod Mandal`s case, [11] the Supreme Court ruled that it was neither
possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the period within which the
test identification parade must be held. If any new such rule is made prescribing the
period, it would only benefit the professional criminals, in those cases the arrests are
delayed due to police not having clear clues about the identity of the accused. The court
also ruled that no specific number of witnesses can be prescribed to correctly identity
the accused. This is the consistent with the rule that evidence shall be assessed on the
basis of quality and not on the basis of quantity. In other words, it is within the
discretionary power of the court to decide these issues depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
6. The ratio in Mullah’s case,[12] cam be summarized as follows:
a. No provision in the law for holding the test identification parade;
b. Test identification is only to help the investigating agency to ensure that they are
proceeding on the right direction;
c. What is relevant is the identification evidence offered in the court by the witnesses and
the earlier identification at the parade corroborates the evidence in the court;
d. To test identification parade is of no value when the witnesses know the accused earlier;
e. Test identification parade must be held as early as possible, otherwise it may prove fatal
to the prosecution`s case. It is in the interest of the prosecution, to answer the
allegation of the accused that witness had the opportunity to see the accused;
f. If valid reasons are given for the delay; test identification parade may be admitted;
g. From the nature of crime itself, ever-lasting impression about the facial feature of the
accused exist in the mind of the witnesses and in their memory, delay is not a fatal and
corroboration also is not necessary;
h. There can be no time limited for holding the test identification parade, as such a limit
will help professional criminal, to avoid and thereby make the time limit to prevent
identification;
i. It is within the discretionary power of the court to decide the various issues relating
parade, to the test identification, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the
each case;
j. The evidence of test identification parade if reliable and true, it can be acted upon;
and
k. That no number of witnesses are required to identify the culprit.
7. These recent rulings will be of considerable help to judges, prosecutors and
investigation agencies to conduct the tests required without delay, fairly and without
any motives to involve an innocent person as well as in accordance with due procedure.
8. It may be necessary to point out regarding identification, that caution must be exercised
with regard to persons who closely resemble each other or in the case of twins, when
they look almost similar and identical. May be Forensic can be used to determine
accurately in such cases, in order to protect an innocent person as against the guilty
involves.