lOMoARcP SD| 25 37 6 74 9

DOCTRINE OF RES
GESTAE

SUBJECT-EVIDENCE LAW
ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED
TO FACULTY OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

For the Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement in

LL.B.(Hons.) – VIth SEM (SECTION B)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

MR. SHOBHIT RASTOGI PRATEEK GAUTAM

FACULTY OF LAW ROLL NO: 200013015124

UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

LUCKNOW
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It feels great pleasure in submitting this research project to MR. SHOBHIT

RASTOGI, without whose guidance this project would not have
been completed successfully. Secondly, I would like to express my
gratitude towards Prof. Alok Kumar Rai, Vice Chancellor and Prof. B.
D. Singh, Professor, Head and dean Faculty of Law for their support
and encouragement.

Next, I would like to sincerely thank my seniors, whose suggestions

and guidance assisted me throughout the entire tenure of making the
project.

Last but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude
towards my parents and friends who guided me and helped me at eve
ry possible step.

PRATEEK GAUTAM
LL.B. (Hons.)
6th semester
 INDEX
SR.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 6 2

3 ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS 3-4

4 RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE 4-7

5 CASES 9

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9
 DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

(Section 6)

(Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction)

INTRODUCTION
'Res Gestae' is a Latin term which can roughly be translated to ‘things done’, but actually was originally
used by the Romans which means to 'acts done or actus'. The concept of res gestae has emerged from the
belief that certain acts or statements, which may otherwise be irrelevant and inadmissible, may be
admitted as evidence due to the very situation in which they were committed or uttered. It can also mean
"things done including words spoken, forming part of the same transaction"..

In all cases that come before the Court of Law, there is a fact story behind each of such cases, and each
fact story contains several acts, omissions and statements. When evidence is given of such acts,
omissions, or statements, although they are not in issue, but are capable of throwing some light upon the
nature of transaction, revealing its true quality, and character. Such acts, omissions and statements are
regarded as part of the same transaction in issue and are allowed to be proved.
Section 6 says that facts even though they are not in issue but if they are so connected as to form part of
the same transaction, they are relevant whether they occur at the same time and place or at different times
and places.

ESSENTIALS
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 should take place during the same time and same place where the offence was
committed.
4. Gestures made by the victim when dying.

Illustrations
a. If a person is dying of poison and before dying, he tells the name of the accused. Even Gestures
made by the victim while dying may also qualify as res gestae vide "Queen v. Abdullah (1885)
ILR 7 All 385".
b. If a person is about to die as the accused is in front of him holding a gun and he asks for help.
c. If an injured person is crying for help.
SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 6 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
The principle embodied in law in Section 6, is usually referred to as the res gestae doctrine. The facts
that can be proved as a part of res gestae must be facts other than those in question but must be linked to
them. Although hearsay evidence is not admissible, it may be admissible in a court of law when it is res
gestae and may be reliable proof. The principle is that the statement should have been made so soon
before or after or along with the incident cases, an to think over and fabricate the things. Thus, in such so
that there can be hardly any time to deliberate and thereby to fabricate a false story.

Res gestae contains facts that are part of the same transaction. It is, therefore, appropriate to examine
what a transaction is, when it begins and when it ends. If any fact does not connect to the main
transaction, it is not a res gestae and therefore inadmissible.

Doctrine of Res Gestae constitutes as one of the exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is no
evidence. Hearsay evidence is the statement deposed by a person who has not himself witnessed the
happening of a transaction but has only heard of it from others and it is general rule of laaw that hearsay
evidence is not admissible before the court.
Section 6 is an exception to the general rule where under, hearsay evidence becomes admissible
but for the purpose of bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of Sec. 6, what is required to be
established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval to
allow fabrication.

Illustrations:
● An injured or injured person’s cry.
● The witness’s cry to see a murder happen.
● The sound of a shot of a bullet.
● The person being attacked is crying for help.
● Gestures made by the person dying etc.

DEFINITION OF TRANSACTION
The term 'same transaction' has not been defined in the Evidence Act. In Layman's language, a
transaction may be considered as a series of certain acts and when all the actions are carried in the same
situations at the same point of time then such situation or condition be called as the act of the same
transaction. A transaction is a group of facts, connected together to be referred to by a single legal name,
a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. It includes both the
immediate cause and effect of an act or event and the other necessary antecedents of its occurrence at a
reasonable distance of time, pace and cause and effect.
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.

Place -No limitation can be imposed as to the territorial boundaries within which the transaction
must occur. Those of sudden quarrel, shooting or stabbing may occur at one place even in a room.
They mayon the other hand, like. a rebellion, or other movement may cover the breadth of a country
or of a continent.

The time.- Section 6 of Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay
evidence is admissible for bringing hearsay evidence under Section 6, it has to be established that it
mustbe almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow
fabrication.
No uniformity exists in the length of time over which the transaction · shall properly be held to
extend. The act or transaction may be completed in a moment of time, or, if there are connecting
circumstancesit may extend, through a period of days, or weeks or even months.

Continuity of action: -The facts forming the part of the same transaction with the fact in issue are
relevant. The expression 'res gestae' as applied to a crime means the complete transaction from its
starting point in the act of the accused until the end is reached.
Where the transaction consists of several physical acts, in order that the chain of such acts may
constitute the same transaction, they may be connected together by proximity of time, by proximity
ofplace, continuity of action and community of purpose.

Community of purpose - The condition for admissibility of a statement made by a person at the
occurrence scene is time proximity, police station proximity, and continuity of action. The expression
does not necessarily suggest time proximity as much as action and purpose continuity.

- Rabindra Nath Moorthy Naidu v. State of West Bengal

The accused Rabindra was tried for stabbing of one Pramesh Pramanik. Shortly after the
stabbing and the accused having escaped, the victim narrated about the incident and about the
accused to the people collected around him. It was held that whatever spoken by the victim
while
 the knife was still stuck on his back to people collected at the scene is a continuity of his conduct
which is continuity of the incident and therefore becomes within the scope of being a part of res
gestae and admissible as independent evidence.

ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS:
In order to make statements admissible under Section 6 forming part of the same transaction, the
following conditions have to be fulfilled

1. The statement must explain, elucidate or characterize the incident in some manner.
2. The statement must be spontaneous or contemporaneous, but not a mere narrative of a completed
past event.
3. The statement must be a statement of fact but not a statement of opinion.
4. The statement must have been made either by a participant in the transaction or by a person who
has himself witnessed the transaction.
5. 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.

- Chotka v. State
the accused was tried for the murder of one Bhutai by stabbing. The deceased was taking Tea and
Chotka came there and inflicted stab injuries on Bhutai. The body of the deceased fell in an open
drain from where it was picked up and was placed on a Kutcha plank. Many people came there at
that time. The prosecution witness one Kiran Bala went there and was told by one of the
bystanders that Chotka stabbed Bhutai. The evidence of the statement deposed by Kiran Bala
was held to be inadmissible as there was no proof to show that the prosecution witness has
herself witnessed the incident.

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
All evidences relating to the main subject is relevant and should be relating to one and the same part of
the transaction. Two separate offenses may be linked so inseparably that the proof of one necessarily
involves proving the other, and in such a case proving that one cannot be excluded from prosecution, as
the other proves.
Proof of other offenses by the accused would be relevant and admissible if a connection existed between
the offense charged and the other offenses or the two acts formed part of the same transaction to fall
within Section 6. Simply because it occurred at or about the same time as the Trial offense res gestae, an
offense that is completely separate and disconnected is not allowable.
Test for Admission of Evidence under Res Gestae
i. First, the judge must take into consideration the circumstances in which the particular statement
was made to his satisfaction that the event was as unusual or beginning or dominationg as it was
to dominate the victim’s thoughts, so that his statement was an instinctive reaction to that event,
and gave no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. And deliberation.
ii. The statement must be so closely associated with the event that led to the statement that it can be
fairly stated that the witness making the statemnet was still dominated by the event in order to be
sufficiently spontaneous. Therefore, the judge must be satisfied that the event providing the
trigger mechanism for the statement was still in operation.
iii. With regard to the possibility of reporting facts narrated in the statement if only the ordinary
error of human recollection is relied on, this goes to the weight to be attached and not to the
admissibility of the statement and is therefore a matter for the jury.

Principle of Admissibility of Declarations Accompanying Acts

1. The statement (oral and written) must relate to the act in question or relevant to it; it is not
admissible simply because it accompanies an act. Moreover, the statement must relate to and
explain the fact that it accompanies, and not independent facts previously or subsequently unless
such facts form part of a continuous transaction.
2. The statement must be substantially at the same time as the fact and not just the narrative of the
past.
3. The statement and the act may be made by the same person, or they may be made by another
person, e.g., victim, assailant, and bystander statements. In conspiracy, it is admissible to riot the
statements of all concerned in the common object.
4. Although it is admissible to explain or corroborate or to understand the meaning of the act, a
declaration is not proof of the truth of the stated matters.

CASES
The test applied to make the evidence admissible in all the following cases was to consider that the
statement was made in the spur of the moment without an opportunity to concoct and do anything.
Where the judges are satisfied that the reaction was the most immediate result of the facts concerned
being relevant to the circumstances, they have allowed such evidence to be admitted.

- Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs Ponna Satyanarayana, ((2000) 6 SCC 286)

In this case, the accused killed his wife and his daughter. The father of the accused made a call to the
police station and said that his son has killed his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. The question arises
before The Honorable Court that whether the statement by the father of the accused falls under the
doctrine of res gestae. The court held that the evidence is inadmissible under the principle of res gestae
because it was unable to determine the time of the call and it was unknown whether the phone call was
simultaneously done immediately after the Commission of the crime.

- Sukhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1999 SC 3883)

In this case, the witness said that he went into the scene of occurrence immediately when he heard the
sound of firing and there he found the injured lying on the ground. The injured said to the witness that
the accused shot him. The court held that the fact is admissible under section 6 of the Indian Evidence
Act as it forms the part same transaction.

- Sawal Das Vs State of Bihar, (AIR 1974 SC 778)

In this case, the husband, his father, and his mother killed his wife. As soon as she was pushed to kill,
she cried out for help and screamed she is been killed by her family. The children who were playing
outside the house also explained that their mother is being killed. The court held the statement of
children is admissible as valid res gestae.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Avtar Singh, Central Law Publication, Allahabad, edn.23rd

• Batuk lal, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, edn. 6th
• Ratan lal & Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis, edn.27th
• Dr. R.V Kelkar’s, Lectures on criminal procedure, EBC, Delhi, edn.6th