Doctrine of Res Gestae

1. Introduction
2. Sec 6 of Indian Evidence Act
3. Res Gestae
4. Essentials of sec 6
5. Res Gestae an exception to hearsay
6. Judicial Observation
7. Conclusion

Introduction

Chapter II of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 discusses provisions as to the relevancy of facts from section
5 to section 55. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the principle of res gestae. Res gestae is
a Latin term which means things done.

Sec 6 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 6 of the act reads as,

“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 time and places“

Illustration- i) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or
by the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it, so as to form part of the transaction, is a
relevant fact.

Res Gestae

Res gestae means the facts and declarations made incidental to the main factor or transactions. Like in the
case of murder stained knife, confession of the accused, etc. They are all incidental to the main factors
which include acts, words, character, etc. Res gestae in criminal offences means the complete criminal
transaction from the beginning to the end. The facts and declaration must be connected together and
referred to by a legal name like crime, contract, etc.

 Res gestae is defined as ” things done or literally speaking, the fact of transaction, explanatory of
the act or showing a motive for acting”

 A matter instant to a main fact and explanatory of it is res gestae

The res gestae not only embraces the real fact of the transaction and the circumstances around it but also
includes the matters immediately antecedent to and having a direct connection with the act.

Generally, any hearsay evidence is not admissible in the court of law but the doctrine of res gestae is an
exception to the evidence. The reason behind this is that the immediacy of the statement is believed to be
a present sense impression or excited utterance.

Essentials of sec 6
 1. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue- Under the definition of
the word relevant (sec 3) one fact is said to be relevant to another when one fact is connected with
the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Act relating to the relevancy of
fact. Every fact is a part of other facts. There is no facts which is unconnected with other facts.

2. Form Part of the same transaction - The word transaction has not been defined under

the Indian Evidence Act. According to Sir James Stephen- A transaction is a group of facts,

connected together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, contract, wrong or any

other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. According to Phipson,- Transaction is the series

of physical facts which also includes words spoken. The transaction consists of physical acts as

well as the words spoken during such physical act, whether spoken by the person doing the

physical act or any other person. Illustration: A is accused of murdering B by beating him.

Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the time of the beating, or shortly

before or after it form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

The rule of efficient test for determining whether a fact forms part of the same transaction or

another depends upon whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or as cause

and effect, or as probable and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continous action.

3. Whether they occurred at the same time or place- 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 circumstances it may extend through a
period of days, or weeks or even months.
No limitation can be imposed as to 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 may
on the other hand like a rebellion, or other movement may cover the breadth of a country or of a
continent.

Res Gestae an exception to hearsay

When a statement (out of court) is made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or
condition, it is considered to be admissible. Such a statement may be referred to as an excited utterance
and is an exception to the hearsay rule. Since most cases of domestic violence and sexual assault involve
a shocking event and often leave the victim in a state of shock, they include the issue of excited
utterances.

In such cases, as only the victim could identify the alleged culprit, the testimony of the victims must be
made admissible in court. It can so happen that the victim may not react immediately after rape or sexual
violence, as such crimes often leave a grave impact on the mind of the victim which may hinder their
thinking process for a while, and the victim may even be in denial due to the gravity of the crime.
Subsequently, the victim may respond after a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, such a statement
ought to be admitted under the Doctrine of Res Gestae if it can be proved that the victim could not make
the statement immediately due to the gruesome impact of the crime on their mind. Therefore, the Doctrine
of Res Gestae creates a blanket of protection over the victims of such heinous crimes.

R v. Foster

The deceased had been killed in an accident by the speeding truck. The witness had not seen incident but
only the speeding truck. The deceased stated to him what had happened with him in the accident. The
court held that the statement of the deceased to the witness to be admissible in evidence as res Gestae.

Judicial Interpretations

R v. Beddingfield-

Here, a woman with a cut throat came running out of a house. She was crying continuously but did not
say a word about how the injury was caused. However, as soon as her aunt came she told her, O Aunt,
see what Beddingfield has done to me.

It was held that it is not to be admissible as res Gestae because the statement was made when incident was
over.

Ratten v. Queen, the act of the deceased wife of calling the telephone operator and asking to connect her
to the police, was res gestae.

Wasu Pilllai v. State - In a murder trial1, the question was whether the accused, who had some injuries
on his body, had those injuries self-inflicted, the prosecution case being that he, the accused, had declared
his decision to finish the deceased and then to finish himself. A threat uttered by the accused on the
morning of the day of occurrence (murder) that he would finish off the deceased and then finish off
himself was held admissible on the ground that evidence as to the manner in which the injuries came to be
sustained by the accused was closely connected with the offence of murder as to form part of the evidence
of murder and part of the transaction.

Sec 8 – Motive, Preparation and Previous or subsequent Conduct

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 :

1) Motive
2) Preparation
3) Conduct

Section 8 runs as follows: 

         "Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.
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.

Explanation 1.

      The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements unless those statements accompany
and explain acts other than statements; but 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 and hearing,
which affects such conduct, is relevant.

Illustration

(a) A is tried for the murder of B.

The facts that, A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money
from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.

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 Laws:

        Supreme Court also held in Kundula Bala vs. State 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, 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, 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, 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.

         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.

Mohanlal vs Emperor,

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.

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 differ 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

1) Parties to the suit and of their agents.

2) Person, an offense against whom is the subject of a proceeding.

Against whom admissible :   The conduct of any person, is relevant under section 8, is admissible only
against himself and not against any other person. The conduct of an accused is not, therefore, Admissible,
against a co-accused.
Conditions of admissibility:

The conduct is admissible only if the following conditions are satisfied:

1) It must be in reference to the suit or proceeding or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant
thereto.

2) It must directly influence or be influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The conduct remains inadmissible if any one of the other two conditions is not satisfied.

Further explanation to sec 8 allows the statement to be admitted under thi section if such statement
accompany and explain acts other than the statements.

In Nagesha V. State of Bihar, AIR, 1996 SC119, it was held by the Court if the first information is
given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving information is admissible against him as an evidence
of his conduct.