ABSTRACT

This paper examines the doctrine of Res Gestae and its relation with the rule of
hearsay evidence. The paper argues and mentions the meaning of the res gestae, its
features; scope and what is the essential condition of a case to fall under the
doctrine of res gestae.
This paper uses the doctrinal research method like usage of various case laws,
research papers and scholarly articles in order to find its relation, admissibility and
relevancy. It also uses comparative method with the English law doctrine as to find
its scope and characteristic in law in India.
It has mentioned various case laws and different exceptions that fall under the
hearsay evidence. The aim of this paper is to analyze the concept of hearsay
evidence and to proof its admissibility and relevance under hearsay evidence.
It majorly focuses on providing immediate and spontaneous relation and providing
evidence as to the main fact in issue. The research problem which was analyzed
under is the tension in the rule of hearsay evidence and admissibility and relevance
of its exceptions, one of them that are res gestae falling under it.
It also examines the challenges associated with is admission as the exception and
up to what extent and circumstances will it be taken as a relevant exception. Res
gestae also challenges the boundaries and this study includes judicial precedents
and decision which will help in examining its significance, complexities and
relevance in India.
Key Words: Hearsay, Evidence, Spontaneity, Immediate, Res Gestae.
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE SECTION 6 OF
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, AN
EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION
India Evidence Act 1872(IEA) is divided into three parts and eleven chapters.
Evidence act is a procedural subject and answer many questions related to rules
and procedures applicable in courts as to- ‘who are the witness competent to
answer before the court’, ‘on whom the burden of proof lies’, ‘what type of
evidence are valid in court of law’ and what are the relevancy and admissibility of
different types of evidence and statements given in courts.
Indian Evidence act provides various rules, procedures, guidelines and exception to
giving evidence and statements in court of law.
The meaning of ‘Evidence’ as derived from the Latin term ‘Evidentia’ which
means to be clear or explain or prove certain things clearly and with their plain
meaning. Black Law Dictionary define evidence as state of bring clear and helps to
take side of one side or the other based on the clear facts explained by giving
evidence.
Section 3 of the IEA mentions the definition of ‘Fact’ which means and includes
anything, state of thing which is perceived by the senses of one person or any
mental condition of which the person perceiving is conscious at the time.
“There are basically two types of facts mentioned in the act. First being the ‘Fact
in Issue’ also known as “Factum Probandum’ which is explained as the main fact
on which the dispute between the parties arose and on which the rights and
liabilities of the person is dependent. Second being the ‘Relevant Facts’ also
known as ‘Factum Probans’ which are necessary as to prove or help to prove the
main fact in issue”. These facts are commonly related with the circumstances and
surrounding of the main facts and which help us to draw inferences with them.
There are certain conditions as to giving evidence. As where documentary and oral
evidence are admissible in court of law whether they are primary or secondary in
relation to documentary evidence, hearsay evidence are not admissible in court of
law.
Hearsay Evidence meaning the evidence which is given by the person who has not
seen the commission of a crime or a fact and has heard it from someone else and is
not witness it directly.
Although there are certain exceptions as to hearsay evidence. One of them being
the Doctrine of Res gestae as mentioned under section 6 of IEA.
Our central question is the relevancy of doctrine of res gestae and its admissibility
as an exception to the hearsay evidence.
The research paper provides an explanation to the doctrine of res gestae using
comparative study and comparing it with the English law, it also focuses on the
significance, characteristics of the doctrine. The paper also mentions the
explanation and its various exceptions of hearsay evidence one being the doctrine
of res gestae.
The paper connects a link between the two topics and lastly mentions the
challenges that can arrive during the admissibility and relevance of res gestae
under the hearsay evidence.
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE
It has been mentioned under section 6 of the IEA, which mentions that facts which
are forming the same transactions with facts in issue are relevant facts.
Section 6 of IEA- Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction- It mentions
that- facts which are not the main facts in issue, are so connected as to form the
same transaction with facts in issue are relevant facts If they occur in same place at
the same time or different place at different time.
Res Gestae has been derived from the Latin term which means a transaction or an
event. It includes everything that may be incidental or considered as incidental to
the main fact in issue.
It can be explained as the facts so closely connected as are incidental and provides
and explanations to the main fact, it can also be said that the facts which are
explanatory to facts and without which the main fact is issue cannot be explained
properly or precisely.
They are defined as the events which speak for themselves and include
circumstances surrounding fact in issue or acts of participants, declarations made
by someone connected to facts are known as facts forming of same transaction.
The facts will be taken as relevant because they will help in explaining the issue
and put them together in a more perfect and precise manner. The test of their
admissibility is done by examining whether such acts are so interwoven together as
if they are separated the main fact in issue cannot be explained properly.
There are two ways in which the doctrine of Res Gestae can be explained, the
English law has taken a restrictive sense in which the words or events which are to
be taken to occur in same transaction should be just before or after the main fact in
issue so to avoid any way to fabricate a false story related to such facts in issue.
And it should be so connected as to make the other person to think that they are
and constitute a part of the facts itself.
Indian law borrows Res Gestae from English law and incorporated it within section
6 and section 7 of Indian Evidence act 1872.
In the case of R vs Bedingfield it was explained that – ‘ a women came out of a
room with a cut on her throat and told to her aunt that – see what Bedingfield has
done to me. The court held the statement said by the women to be relevant as this
was forming the same transaction with the fact in issue.
According to Halsbury’s law– the items forming res gestae with the main facts due
to their connection and strength as to main fact in issue are admissible and
relevant.
Sir James Stephan has defined the meaning of the term transaction used in the
above definition of Res Gestae and explained that the facts or group of facts which
are so connected as to be perceived as one or included in the facts in issue and is
hardly separable with one another.
A transaction can include both physical acts done by a person, or a word said or
statements connected with the facts in issue, and it can be such words spoken by
the person which have done such acts, or some other person connected with the
issue.
It includes spontaneous and immediate facts in which fabrication of false stories
are not possible.
VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH CAN AFFECT
THE FACTS HELD IN SAME TRANSACTION
There are various factors which are important while identifying that whether the
facts held, statements stated, or actions done by a person is held in the same
transaction or not. The various factors are-
Time of incident– there is no proper time limit given by the act, to held that
whether the acts are done in the same transaction or not. Some facts or acts may
occur within seconds of the main fact in issue, some may take months.
When a agreement is held between the parties and the acts are done continuously
with negotiations and agreements and has been stretched for months, the acts done
after such months can be held in same transaction.
It depends upon the facts of the case whether the acts done after or before such act
is relevant or not.
Place of incident– just like time, place also does not have a limit, and it cannot be
restricted to a particular place.
An act forming the same transaction can be done within a room, or a territory or
another country and it cannot be limited. For example, the acts of shooting or
killing can take place at one place but an act or terrorism or rebellion can take
place and cover the breadth of a country.
Statements by Bystanders– in this the term ‘Bystanders’ means the person who
was present at the spot of the occurrence of the event and not the person who
gathers at the spot after the commission of an act.
It was held that the statements made by the bystanders are held admissible or
relevant when he has seen and witness the actual occurrence of the act and was
present at the time, place and circumstances of the event.
And the statements made by such bystanders are made soon after the occurrence of
act and is incidental to the time, place and circumstance of the act.
In case of Ghulam vs R– a girl who was raped made statements about the
commission of the act and the appearances of the culprits after six months of the
commission of the offence.
It was held by the court that the statements made by the girl is not relevant as it is
not forming part of same transaction and given the girl enough time to fabricate a
false story and hence do not fall under the definition of Res Gestae under section 6
of IEA.
ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR FACTS
FORMING THE PART OF RES GESTAE OR
SAME TRANSACTION IS AS FOLLOWS
1. The facts must describe and explain the characteristics of fact in issue
or of circumstances around it.
2. The fact can be an action or statements made by a person, but the
statements said by the person should be spontaneous and immediate
and not only a narrative of the past events.
3. The statements said by the person relevant to fact in issue can be a
statement of fact but not of statement of opinion.
4. The statements or action can be done by a party to a suit or of any
other person who has witnessed the event himself.
5. A statement said by a bystander will not be admissible or relevant
unless it is shown by the person that he was present at the time, place
and circumstances of happening of the event.
SCOPE OF RES GESTAE DOCTRINE
The doctrine of Res Gestae which means the facts, statements or acts forming the
part of same transaction with the facts in issue are relevant facts and are
admissible.
The scope of Res Gestae was first only restricted to criminal matters and
proceedings as evidences in those matters cannot be found directly related to the
main facts in issue and when the offence has been committed it is difficult to
produce any direct witness before the court of law.
But with the changing time, the doctrine of Res Gestae has now been applied to
matrimonial matters and well as matters related with children.
In matters related to marriage, no direct witness or evidence can be produced or
when it is difficult to produce relevant evidence which are directly connected with
the main fact in issue due to privileged relationship therefore evidence, actions or
statements which form the same transaction are produced as witness.
Same goes with the matter of child as a child is immature and is insufficient to
understand the nature of the act and to give direct evidence related to the main fact
in issue, therefore any shouting, incident, beating or saying something to him
during the incident will be considered valid as a fact forming the same transaction
under Res Gestae.
In the case of Uttam Singh vs State of MP– a child was sleeping with his father
and suddenly the accused came and hit the father with a sudden blow on his neck
by an axe and the father died by the act, and the child was awakened by the sound
of the blow, afterwards he listened his mother and sister shouting for help and
crying loudly.
All these acts which the child has saw and hear like the sound of axe, shouting and
crying will be held admissible and relevant as under section 6 of IEA.
RES GESTAE AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE
All documentary and oral evidence are admissible in court, but the concept of
hearsay evidence is not admissible as relevant evidence in court of law.
Hearsay evidence means any evidence given by a person who was not directly
present at the incident or has not heard, seen or does some act in respect of the fact
in issue.
Hearsay evidence can be said as when a person has heard of an incident from some
other person and has not himself witnessed the event himself.
Therefore, we can say that any statement given by a person who is not an
eyewitness to the incident is known to be as hearsay evidence. The facts why
hearsay evidence is not admissible in the court are-
1. The person making the hearsay statement does not have any personal
liability towards the statements and facts he is saying and therefore in
any situation of taking responsibility he has a line to escape its
responsibility by saying that- he has heard from this person.
2. No guarantee of truth as truth gets diluted with each person and each
repetition.
3. If the hearsay evidence is permitted there is more chances of fraud, as
no responsibility on the person making it and he can make statements
with saying that- so and so person has told him, or he has heard from
him.
Although it has been established that hearsay evidence is not admissible in the
court of law, IEA do provide certain exception to the rule of hearsay evidence. The
exception to the rule of hearsay evidence are made in doctrine of Res Gestae-
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE IS ALSO AN
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
It is an exception as it provides the statements made by a person in a hearsay
manner if it is directly connected with the facts in issue or relevant facts and which
form the part of same transaction.
Res gestae mentions that the statements made by the person are so closely
connected as to form the part of same transaction and does not provide any time for
the fabrication of false story which is the reason why hearsay evidence are not
admissible as they allow a great deal doubt to fabricate the false story and to dilute
the truth.
Res Gestae as an exception to the doctrine has been provided with a series of case
laws-
Bandela Nagaraju vs State of AP– in this case it was held that the section 6 of
IEA provides that the facts forming the same transaction should be so closely
connected as they cannot be easily understood as they are not the same facts and
which do not give enough time to influence the existence of facts therefore, the
doctrine of Res Gestae provides as an exception to hearsay evidence.
In case of Bishna vs state of West Bengal– in this case a person came to the place
of commission of crime immediately after it was committed and found a dead body
and some unconscious people lying around and heard about the whole incidence by
the eyewitnesses present there. It has been held by the court that the statements by
that person will be held admissible as relevant under section 6 of IEA.
Then, in the case of Chohotka vs the State– this case laid down certain guidelines
of res gestae forming an exception to hearsay evidence.
 The facts which will render the existence of certain facts or facts in
issue highly probable will be relevant.
 The res gestae will be admissible as an exception when such facts are
immediate and spontaneous to the fact in issue.
 Certain declarations and statements which will be necessary to
explain certain facts in issue will be held relevant.
In case of Bhaskaran vs State of Kerala it was held that the spontaneity of facts
does not guarantee that the facts will be without any fabrication, the facts will only
be admissible as relevant when it forms the part of same transaction and therefore a
fact said by the person must fulfill both the conditions of it being spontaneous and
forming the part of same transaction as of fact in issue.
Some other exception to the hearsay evidence mentioned under IEA 1872 is as
follows-
1. Dying declaration– it has been mentioned under section 32(1) of
IEA and is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence. It mentions
that any statement made by a person who is dead or circumstances
related to his dead will be relevant and admissible as evidence when
the death of the person is in question.
2. Expert Opinion– it has been mentioned under section 45 of IEA. It
mentions that when a court has to form its opinion on any subject
matter related to foreign law, art or science the court can take opinion
of such person who has the specialized skill in the subject related to
such matters of foreign law, art and science. Such persons are known
as experts. Expert opinion is an exception to the general hearsay
evidence.
3. Admissions and confessions– admissions is mentioned from section
17- 23 of IEA and state that any acknowledgement made by any
person which can be oral or documentary as to existence of certain
facts which provides and inference as to fact in issue or relevant facts
and which are inconsistent with its claim in action.
Confession on the other side is a declaration or an admission of guilt made by a
person. It is mention under section 24-30 of IEA. Definition of confession has not
been mentioned under the act but a statement made by an accused for the
admission of guilt pr admitting that he has committed a particular act is confession.
CRITIQUE AND STAND OF JUDICIARY
In the rule of hearsay evidence and res gestae it is mentioned that the doctrine of
res gestae is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence if the facts or statements
uttered form the part of same transaction with the main fact in issue and relevant
fact. The facts must be immediate and spontaneous so as to avoid any false framing
of stories.
The statement suggests that there is no proper time mentioned as to get a proof on
the honesty of the statement made. It is suggested that it is only a matter of seconds
that a person needs to frame a false story and the difference of reaction between the
deceptive statements and the honest statements are negligible.
However, it is also concluded that stress can cause in utterance of statements and
facts by the victim therefore not guaranteeing the accuracy of the statements.
According to the judiciary the supreme court of India with the courts of England
and America has held that the concept of spontaneity and immediate acts are the
essential conditions for a fact to be admissible under section 6.
In case of Kameshwar vs R it was held that if there is an interval between the facts
and min issue, and if it gave even the slightest possibility of fabrication of false
story then it will be not valid and admissible under section 6 though can be
admissible under section 157.
In case of Bishna vs State of West Bengal the two witnesses reached the spot of
incident and found a dead body and an injured body of a person, one of the
witnesses found the mother of one of the victims crying loudly near the bodies, the
statement of mother being the eyewitness is valid and admissible.
CONCLUSION
The strength of the doctrine of Res gestae mentioned under section 6 lies in its
vagueness and there is no particular answer or time as to which fact is admissible
and not.
Although Supreme Court has lay down certain guidelines as to tell which fact is
under section 6. The court mentioned the term ‘same transaction’ and ‘immediate
and spontaneous’ as to giving an effect to section 6.
It has been held that in normal conditions such evidence which cannot fall under
any other section of evidence act falls in the preview of section 6.
As it makes statement admissible and relevant based on its transaction with the fact
in issue or relevant fact. It has been also held by the courts that the continuity also
effects the statements and its relevancy if the statement has said after a long gap
but is in continuity and occurrence of the event then such statements will be valid.