Res Gastae

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 lays down the provisions relating to the ‘Doctrine of
Res Gastae’. It runs as follows -
"Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the
same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places."

Illustrations:-
a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the
bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it 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 present at all of them.
c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the
parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the
correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts though they do not contain the libel
itself.
d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were
delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
The term "same transaction" under Section 6, has not been defined in the Evidence Act. The
principle underlying Section 6, the following is sometimes termed as "Res Gestae".
Res Gestae - Meaning: The Doctrine of 'Res Gestae' is borrowed from English Law and
incorporated in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term 'Res' is a Latin word, which
means "thing" and the expression "Res Gestae" literally means "the thing done, a subject matter,
a transaction or essential circumstances surrounding the subject." In Law of Evidence, it means
things done including words spoken, forming part of the same transaction. There is a fact story
behind every case before the court of law. It (fact story) contains certain acts, omissions or
statements, which are not in issue, but are capable of throwing some light upon the nature of the
transaction revealing its true quality and character. Such acts, omissions, or statements form part
of the same transaction in issue and are allowed to be proved.

Res Gastae 1
 Definition: The doctrine of 'Res Gestae' may be defined as those circumstances, which are
automatic and undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such acts.
Halsbury defines 'res gastae' as "Facts which form part of the res gestae and are consequently
provable as facts relevant to the issue; include acts, declarations and incidents which themselves
constitute or accompany and explain the facts or transaction in issue.
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the 'Doctrine of Res Gestae. According to
Section 6, facts though not in issue are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the
same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places. (Some times fact itself is not a fact in issue, but is connected with fact in issue.
Still it is relevant since it forms part of the same transaction. It may occur at the same time and
place or at different times and places. In simple words, only relevant facts are admissible in
evidence. However, there are certain circumstances in which certain facts, though not relevant,
are admissible, since they form part of the same transaction.)
Eg:- A is accused of murdering B by beating. Whatever is said or done by A or B or bystanders at
the beating, or so shortly or after it (beating) forms part of the same transaction and is relevant.
In simple words, relevancy of facts, which form part of the same transaction, denotes 'Res
Gestae'. Now the question is, what is transaction?
According to Stephen, "a transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to
by a single legal name such as a crime, a contract or wrong or any other subject of inquiry, which
may be in issue". This definition was approved in many cases.

In the above example, certain words like "I will kill you", "I will not spare you", "Oh! Please do
not beat, he would die" uttered by A, B or bystanders, are not the facts in issue. But they form
part of the same transaction (beating-crime) and become provable under Sec.6 of the Act.
While applying the principle of Res Gestae, the courts are very rigid and cautious, since it is very
difficult to understand what facts do form and what facts do not form part of the same
transaction.
Case Law:-
R.V.Foster, (1941) SC 363 The accused in the instant case was charged with manslaughter for
killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the vehicle at a high speed, but did not see
the accident. On hearing cries of the victim, he reached the spot. The victim died after making
statement as to cause of accident. The statement was held admissible.

Res Gastae 2
 Conditions:
A statement to be admissible under Section 6, the following conditions are to be satisfied:

1. The statement must be a statement of fact and not of opinion.

2. The statement must have Leen made by a participant or witness of the transaction.

3. The statement made by bystander is admissible, if he was present at the scene of the offence.

4. The statement must explain, elucidate or characterise the incident in the same manner.

In Hadu Samanta vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1951 Orissa 53: The accused, Hadu Samanta was
charged for murderingone Bhim Panda. The deceased gave accused, some gold andmoney for
teaching, by which golden treasures from underneath the land can be taken out. As the purpose
could not be served, the deceased demanded return of the gold and amount. When the deceased
went to accused's residence for collecting gold and money, the accused administered poison to
him. The dead body was found lying near a village tank. The body was identified as that of Bhim
Panda, by his wife. The accused was prosecuted for murder, basing on circumstantial evidence
though, there was no direct evidence in this case.
The most important incriminating circumstance on which the prosecution relied. stated by P.W.6.
He stated that on the 19th he had taken cartload of fruit on hire from his village to Partabpur and
that on his return therefrom by about 10 P.M. he passed through the village of the accused. As he
was coming in his cart, he found a cart standing at the door of the accused on the road with
bullocks unlocked and tied to the cart. The cart was blocking his way and he accordingly asked
the man, standing by to shift the cart a little to allow his cart to pass. The person asked him to
take the cart by the sideway as a dead body had been loaded on that cart, "A person said a dead
body was loaded on the cart" was said to be admissible by the prosecution. It was argued that on
the assumption that the murder may have taken place in the house of the applicant and the body
was disposed of by carrying the dead body on a cart and throwing it away at or about the place
where it was found, the whole of the series of events from the, murderous assault to the throwing
away of the dead body constituted one transaction and the statement of the unidentified person
spoken to by the P.W.6 was part of that series of events and that the said statement being a
spontaneous reaction to the request of P.W.6 for removing the cart from his way is admissible.
This argument did not find favor with the court and it was held that: illustration 'a' to Section 6
no doubt has indicated that the spontaneous statement of a bystander who sees the commission of
murder is admissible. From this it cannot be deduced as is contended that all spontaneous
statements in some way connected with the transaction under investigation and admissible.
According to Section 6 what is admissible is a fact which is connected with the fact in issue as

Res Gastae 3
 'part of the transaction'.
There was no indication in the case that the person who made the statement had actually
witnessed the murder or that no substantial time had elapsed between the occurrence and
statement.

Rabindra Nath Moorthy Naidu vs. State of West Bengal, 1996 Cr.LJ 2928 (Cal): 1996 (1)
Cal. L.T. 297:
In this case, the accused (Rabindra Nath Murthy Naidu) was tried for stabbing of one, Paresh
Pramanik. Shortly after stabbing, he escaped. The victim narrated about the incident to the
people gathered around him, while the knife was still stuck on his back. It was held that the
incident itself comes within the scope of being part of res gestae and admissible as independent
evidence.

Vasa Chandrasekher Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana, AIR 2000 SC 2138:

In this case, the accused, Ponna Satyanarayana was charged with murder of his wife and
daughter. The statement of the father of the deceased that the father of the accused told him on
telephone that his son had killed the deceased was held not relevant as part of the transaction as it
was not proved whether statement was made at the time of the incident or immediately after it.
However, the accused was convicted on the basis of other evidence.

Badruddin vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1223:

The accused in the instant case quarrelled with the deceased. The accused dragged the deseased
from his house to Chawk area and began to beat the deceased. One villager, who witnessed the
incidence of beating rushed to the Police Patel and reported the Court that they received
information from the villager as to the incidence of beating the deceased. The statement of the
Police Patel was held relevant and admissible.

Res Gastae 4