Section 6

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.

Example:
In the case of Ratten V. Queen 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 death and the time of 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’s defence 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 - the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an alarm. On
hearing the alarm the witness reached almost at the same time when the victim told that the
accused at shot him. The victim did not die. The accused was charged with section 307
IPC,1860 (punishment for attempt to murder). However during the trial the victim died for
some other cause. Despite being hearsay evidence, the statement of the witness was held to
be admissible as it formed a part of the same 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 became a part of the same transaction and therefore fell under
section 6 and became admissible as valid evidence.
4. Gestures made by the victim when dying-Queen V. Abdullah- 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 incident by persons who witnessed it. It was held to be a part of the
happening so it came under the purview of section 6.
A case is nothing but a story consisting of numerous facts. It is duty of the court to ascertain what facts
are relevant to a case under section 5. Afterwards the court has to see whether such relevant facts are so
connected with each other for which the event took place. This situation has been dealt with under section
6 of the Act. The rule formulated in this section has been illustrated in Sections 7, 8 and 9.

Section 6 lays down that facts which are connected with facts in issue form part of the ‘same transaction’
are relevant facts. All these facts are therefore, admissible in evidence. The law under this section applies
to civil cases as feel as to criminal cases. It is technically known as res gestae. It means that “the things
done (including words spoken) in the same course of transaction, such as, a crime, a contract, a wrong etc.
Each fact is, therefore, a part of other facts found in a same transaction.” Fact deposed must be made
contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it. Facts must be proved other than those in issue. In
a rape case mere delay in lodging FIR is not by itself necessarily fatal to prosecution case; however, fact
that report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which court must take notice.

Res gestae:
Res gestae is the basic principle contained in Section 6. It is latin term which literally means
“things done.” In English it means “things said and done in the course of a transaction.” The
essence of the principle is that a fact which though not in issue is so connected with the fact in
issue as to form the part of the same transaction. The test for applying of rule of res gestae is that
statement (or fact) should be spontaneous and should form part of the same transaction ruling out
any possibility of concoction. The term has been used in two senses. “In the restricted sense it
means world’s happening out of which the right and liability in question may arise.

In the wider sense it covers all the probative facts by which the res gestae are reproduced to the
tribunal where the direct evidence of witness or perception by the court are unattainable.” For
application of this section it is essential that the fact must not be too remote but must be part of a
single transaction. According to Woodroffe the term res gestae “as those circumstances which
are automatic and undesigned incidents of a particular litigated Act and which are admissible
when illustrative of such Act.” It is transaction of various facts consisting of physical and
psychological acts whether occur at the same time and place. Such facts are admitted as forming
part of res gestae. Illustrations (b) and (d) of Section 6 are examples of the situation.

Section 6 embodies the rules of evidence relating to res gestae provided the statement which part
of the res gestae does not narrate the part event. Immediately after the incident the prosecution
witness came to the spot on hearing and gained the knowledge through another person who are
present there when accused stabbed the victim. The evidence is admissible. Evidence of
independent witness in particular facts can be treated as res gestae. FIR, if proved is admissible
as res gestae .A witness stated that immediately after the incident he heard hue and cry of the
deceased’s father who was present there and was crying and uttering that his son-in-law had
killed his daughter. The evidence of such independence witness is admissible under this section
as res gestae.

Hearsay statement of witness being admissible under section 6:

In Sukhar v State of U.P. the question whether the witness could give evidence of what the
victim told him was raised? It was held that Section 6 as an exception to general rule that hearsay
is not admissible as evidence. But it has to be established that ‘’the statement was about
contemporaneous with the fact in issue and there should not be any interval for fabrication, so
that it forms part of the same transaction.” In this case the evidence of the witness is admissible.
When the witness came to the place of occurrence where they found the dead body of the
deceased and injured victim in unconscious state.

The mother of deceased was weeping. They heard about entire incident from injured witnesses
including the accused and others. Evidence of the said witnesses had corroborated evidence of
prosecution witnesses and also allegations made in FIR. The evidence would be admissible under
the section.

Statement of bystander:
The statements of bystander are admissible under section 6. The statement must be spontaneous
reaction of the person witnessing the crime and must form a part of the transaction. The
statement of the person is relevant only who has seen the actual occurrence. But statement made
by the persons other than eye-witness could only be hearsay and not relevant.

Where a number of persons came to the spot immediately after murder and was told by the eye-
witness who found the two culprits, their evidence is relevant. In order to admit the statements of
bystander it must have been made as contemplated by Section 6 and Illustration (a). If the
transaction was terminated and thereafter the statement was made, the statement is not relevant.
Admissibility is depended on continuity.

Section 8

Section.8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the provisions relating to the relevancy of
three principal facts, which are very important in connection with every kind of civil or criminal
cases, they are as follows:

a) Motive
b) Preparation
c) Conduct

1) Motive:

The word 'motive' means “the reason behind the act or conduct or an act to be achieved in doing
an act."
Salmond describes motive as "the ulterior intent". It may be good or bad.
Motive is the moving power, which impels one to do an act. In other words, a motive is that
which moves a man to do a particular act. It is an emotion or State of Mind, which leads a man to
do an act. Motive by itself is no crime, however heinous it may be. Once a crime has been
committed, the evidence of motive becomes important. Therefore, evidence of the existence of a
motive for the crime charged is Admissible.
Motive differs from intention. Intention refers to immediate consequences, whereas, motive
refers to ultimate purpose with which an act is done. An act may be done with bad intention but
good motive.
Example: A thief steals money and helps the poor.
Proof of Motive:
Motive cannot always shown directly. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstantial in
evidence.
E.g.: A is tried for murder of B, The fact that B was present at the scene of the offence, while A
was murdering C, B tried to extort money from A, by threatening him to reveal in the public that
A murdered C are relevant.

Importance of Evidence of motive:

Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, whether based on the testimony of eye
witnesses or circumstantial evidence. Motive alone is not sufficient evidence to establish that the
crime in question has been committed by a particular person. Where a crime is to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, it is not necessary to consider the evidence of motive. Inadequacy of
motive does not affect the cogent evidence but is important, whether evidence is doubtful.

Relevant Case Law:

It has been held in Udaipal Singh vs. State, AIR1972 SC 54, that Evidence of motive is
relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Supreme Court also held in Kundula Bala vs. State 1993, Court held that in a case based
on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes a great significance as its Evidence in an
enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.

In State of M.P. Vs. Dhiredra Kumar AIR 1997 SC 318, Munnibai was killed.
Respondent Dhiredra Kumar had en evil eye on her. Respondent was tenant in the house of
father-in-law of deceased (Munnibai) Munnibai reported the matter to her mother in law who in
turn told to her husband; who told vacate the house. This may be taken as motive of murder.

In State of Haryana v. Sher Singh.AIR 1981 SC 1021, held that if the prosecution
proves motive, Court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate.
When there is direct evidence, the evidence of motive is not of so much significance. The
evidence of

Motive becomes important to Corroborate the circumstantial evidence in Sakharam v.

State AIR 1992 SC 758, held, that absence of Motive may not be relevant when Evidence is
overwhelming but it is a plus point in case where the Evidence against the accused is only
Circumstantial.

2) Preparation:

Section 8, Para I of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says, “Any fact is relevant which shows
or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact."
Preparation consists in arranging the means necessary for the commission of a crime. Every
crime is necessarily preceded by preparation.

Illustration
"A is tried for the murder of B, by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A produced
poison similar to that which was administered to B is relevant."
The fact that a day prior to the murder of B, A went to the druggist shop and obtained a
particular poison, is relevant to show that he made necessary preparation for committing the
crime.
There are four stages in Commission of Crime
1) Intention
2) Preparation
3) Attempt
4) Accomplishment / complete act.

d) The first, intention is not punishable. The second stage in commission of a crime is
preparation, is punishable in certain cases. The third stage attempt is exempted from
criminal liability in rare cases in respect of minor offences. Preparation in devising or
arranging means necessary for commission of an offence.
e) Mohanlal vs Emperor, AIR 1937, Sindh 293.
f) In this case, the accused was charged with cheating for importing goods without paying
proper custom duty by deceiving customs authorities. The evidence of his previous visit
to the port trying to make certain arrangements whereby he could import goods without
paying duty was held Admissible under the Section.
g) The preparation on the part of the accused may be, to accomplish the crime, to prevent
discovery of crime or it may be to aid the escape of the criminal and avert suspicion.
3. Conduct

The conduct is the expression in outward behavior of the quality or conduct operating to
produce those effects. The second paragraph of Section 8 deals with the relevancy of
conduct it says that , " The conduct of any party, 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 of any person an offense against whom is the
subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any
fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto."

Conduct is different from the character. Conduct is what a person is in the estimation of
others. Paragraph 2 of Section 8 deals with the relevancy of the conduct of the following
persons:
• Parties to the suit and of their agents.
• Person, an offense against whom is the subject of a proceeding.