The principal of law embodied in S.6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae.

The rules
formulated in s. 6 is expounded and illustrated in S. 7, 8, 9 and14. Facts which may be proved, as
part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though
hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law
and may be reliable evidence. This section is used by the lawyers as a last resort so; there is not
much case law on this section. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of
such statement that there is hardly anytime for concoction. So, such statement must be
contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.

Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what
is a

transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the main
transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. Res gestae include elements that
fall outside the modern hearsay definition altogether, such as circumstantial evidence of state of
mind, so-called “verbal acts,” verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal conduct. Because
excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the excitement flows from the
event, excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the “things done”) and hence
admissible despite the hearsay rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsay exceptions for present-
sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence of state of mind, and statements made to
physicians

MEANING OF RES-GESTAE

Res gestae has no exact English translation. A literal translation means “something
deliberately

undertaken or done”.1

1 Translation provided by Dr. Philip Pattenden, Dir. Of Studies in Classic, Peterhouse,

Cambridge.
Few areas of the common law of hearsay are in greater dispute than the doctrine of res gestae. 2
Dean Wigmore comments, “The phrase res gestae is, in the present state of the law, not only
entirely useless, but even positively harmful... It ought therefore wholly to be repudiated, as a
vicious element in our legal phraseology. It should never be mentioned.” 3

Res gestae has been defined as “Things done, or liberally speaking, the facts of the
transaction

explanatory of an act or showing a motive for acting; a matters incidental to a main fact and
explanatory of it; including acts and words which are so closely connected with a main fact as
will constitute a part of it, and without a knowledge of which the main fact might not be properly
understood, even speaking for themselves though the instinctive words and acts of participants
not the words and acts of participants when narrating the events, the circumstances, facts and
declaration which grow out of the main fact, and contemporaneous with it and serve to illustrate
its character or these circumstance which are the automic and undersigned incidents of a
particular litigated act and are admissible when illustrative of such act.”4

According to Black’s Dictionary, res gestae meant “things done . . . things or things
happened . . . words

spoken, thoughts expressed, and gestures made, all . . . so closely connected to occurrence or
event in both time and substance as to be a part of the happening. . . .[That is, the] whole of the
transaction under investigation and every part of it. . . . “ 56 .In other words, res gestae meant
nothing more than the modern words “same transaction or occurrence” and had something to do
with relevancy. Res gestae also encompassed “those circumstances which are the automatic and

2 Edmund M. Morgan, Hearsay - What Is It?, 12 Wash. L. Rev. 1, 4 (1937) , p. 132

(describing phrase res gestae as “inexact and indefinite in its scope”).
3 Id.
4 Vinodkumar Baderbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat, 1998 INDLAW GUJ 22
5 Black’s Law Dictionary 1305 (6th ed. 1990) (citing McClory vs Schneider, 51 S.W.2d
738, 741 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)).
6 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1299111
undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act, which may be separated from act by lapse of
time more or less appreciable, and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.”7

In Babulal vs W.I.T Ltd., 8 it was observed that the statement of law in section 6
of the evidence

act is usually known as Res Gestae. The literal meaning of the word ‘res’ is “everything that may
form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status”. 9 Res Gestae has been
described as a term of protean significance and that there have been many definitions of the term.
No evidential problem is as shrouded in doubt and confusion 10 as is Res Gestae. The rule as to
admissibility of evidence known as the Res Gestae rule has been declared to be incapable of any
precise definition and it has been applied to so many different and unrelated situations that it has
been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of Res Gestae which will serve all
circumstances seems insurmountable.11 It would be little short of miraculous if one single
doctrine of Res Gestae would suffice for every situation.

There must be a main or principal fact or transaction; and only such declarations are
admissible which

grow out of the principal transaction and serve to illustrate its character, and are contemporary
with, and derive some degree of credit from it. The main transaction is not necessarily confined
to a particular point of time, but may extend over a long or shorter period, according to the nature
and character of the transaction.12

Section 6 uses words like transaction, bystanders etc. It is important to understand the
implications of

7 Id.
8 1956 INDLAW CAL 105
9 Escorts Farms Ltd vs Commisioner Kumaon Division 2004 INDLAW SC 1157
10 Julius Stone, Res Gesta Raegitata, Vol. 55 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 66
11 31 A CJS 978
12 Lund vs inhabitants &c. 9 Cush (Mass) 36, cited in
Jones Ev s 358. 13 R vs Ring A 1929 B 296.
these words to know the scope of this section.

WHAT IS A TRANSACTION

A transaction, as the term used in this sec. is defined by a single name, as a crime, a
contract, a wrong or

any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. It include both immediate cause and effect of
an act or event, and also its collection of relevant circumstances, the other necessary antecedents
of it occurrence, connected with it, at a reasonable distance of the time, pace and cause and
effect.13A good working test of deciding what transaction is; is proximity of time, unity or
proximity of place, continuity of actions, and community of purpose
or design.13 But the main test must be continuity of action and community of purpose. 14 The
condition for admissibility of a statement made by a person who was at the scene of occurrence
is the proximity of time, the proximity of the police station and the continuity of action 15. The
expression suggests not necessarily proximity of time so much as continuity of action and
purpose.17

Buying a pen from the shop is also a transaction. It ends the moment the buyer hands the money
to the shopkeeper and the shopkeeper hands the pen to the buyer. But certain transaction like
murder extends over a longer period of time. When can a transaction be said to end and when it
begins; depends on the fact and circumstances of each case.

A transaction may constitute a single incident occupying a few moments or it may be

spread over a

variety of acts, declaration etc. All these constitute incidents, which though not strictly
constituting a fact in issue, accompany and tend to explain or qualify the fact in issue. All these
fact are relevant only when they are connected by proximity of time, unity or proximity of place,
continuity of action and community of purpose or design.18

For instance, a person is lying on the side of the road. He is injured and is shouting for
help. A passer by

comes by listening his shout and then he is told that ‘Mr. X tried killing him’. Can this statement
be admissible as forming part of same transaction? (Instance I). In the same situation, if the
passer by comes to the victim voluntarily and then asks the victim and comes to know that Mr. X
tried killing him. Can this statement be admissible as forming part of same transaction (Instance
II)?

13 Banga Ch vs Annada 35 CLJ 527

14 R vs Loclay
15 Bandela Nagaraju vs State of A.P 1983
INDLAW AP 75 17 Ganesh vs R, A 1931
18
P 52. Amritala vs R 42 C 957.
There is difference between both the situations. In first instance, the transaction was still
continuing. The victim was under the stress of excitement and the statement made by him was a
reaction to the main act i.e. murder. In the second instance, the statement made by the person was
a response to the question asked by the person. It may be said that the transaction ended as there
was an intervention by a third person, the passer by asked a question as to what happened and the
response was not a reaction to the situation but a response to his question. If any statement is a
reaction to the situation than it forms part of the same transaction but if it is a response to the
question, the transaction ends with the intervention of a third party and such acts or admissible
can not be made admissible under sec.6 of the Indian evidence act.

Statement made after some times may be admissible under S. 157 as corroborative
evidence but not

under S. 6.16 Two fact occurring at the same time and place may have no connection between
them; and yet two facts separated by a vast distance of time and lace may be part of the same
transaction. The primary offence and the offence of destroying evidence of the primary offence
may in certain circumstances be parts of same transaction.17

To form a particular statement as a part of the same transaction, utterance must be

simultaneous with the

incident or soon after it so as to make it reasonably certain that the speaker is still under stress of
excitement in respect of the transaction in question. Where the accused made a statement to the
deceased’s brother relating to the motive and commission of the offence after half an hour of the
incident, it cannot be said that there was a long interval so as to give an opportunity for any
fabrication and therefore, it was admissible under s. 6.21 Statement by a victim shortly after he
sustained injuries that the accused inflicted them is admissible under S.6. 22 Transaction also ends

16 Rameshwar vs S AIR 195 C 54.

17 Hari vs State of U.P 183 Cri LJ
NOC 62(All) 21 Venkatesan vs
State 1997 INDLAW MAD 104 22
Krishnaram vs S, A 1964 As 53.
with a time gap. If there is a long time gap, it can be said that the response of the victim is
concocted or it is influenced by his/her personal feelings.

Whatever is said by the informant in the F.I.R or to other witness after the occurrence forms part
of the same transaction?18 When the offence under trail is filing false complaint; what happened
at the subsequent police investigation of the complaint forms no part of the res gesate.24

Evidence which is connected with the principal subject matters of the charges as parts of one and
the same transaction is relevant.19 Two distinct offences may be so inseparable connected that the
proof of one necessarily involves proving the other, and in such a case on a prosecution for one,
evidence proving it cannot be excluded because it also proves the other. 20 Evidence as to other
offences by the accused would be relevant and admissible if there is a nexus between the offence
charged and the other offences or the two acts form part of the same transaction so a to fall
within S.6. An entirely separate and disconnected offence is not admissible merely because it
occurred at or about the same time as the res gestae of the offence on Trail.27

Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts,
or facts in issue,

or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant21.

This section admits a very large class of facts connected with facts in issue or relevant
facts, though not

18 Shyam Nandan Singh vs State of Bihar 1991

INDLAW PAT 12 24 Venkatasubbiah vs R 48 M
640.
19 R vs Vajiram, 16 B 414, p. 430-31.
20 Peoples vs Marble 38
Mich 117. 27 Peoples vs
Lane, 100 California 379.
21 Sec. 7 of Evidence Act.
forming part of the transaction. Facts forming part of the same transaction are admissible under
the preceding section. Evidence relating to collateral facts is admissible when such facts will, if
established reasonable presumption as to the matter in dispute and when such evidence is
reasonably conclusive. The section provides for the admission of several classes of facts which
are connected with the transaction under inquiry in particular modes,
(1) as being the occasion or cause of a fact;

(2) as being its effect;

(3) as giving opportunity for its occurrence; and

(4) as constituting the state of things under which it happened.

A fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it, but not part of the
same transaction,

have occurred at the other times. Thus, when the question is, whether a person has committed a
crime, the fact that he had committed a similar crime before, is irrelevant.

ALLEGED FACT: property recovered form accused by the deceased, murder of the
deceased. The court

said that unless it could be conclusively established that the property was with the deceased at
the time of the offence, the question of property would not be good enough nexus with the
murder.22
TAPE RECORDER: A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant
fact and is admissible under section 7 but such evidence must be received with caution. 23 Where
the tape recorded conversation carried music before and after the recorded conversation and the
same could not be explained the court said that the only plausible explanation was that the tape
was tampered.24 A contemporaneous tape recorded of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact
and is admissible under section 7. The manner and mode of its proof and its use in a trial is a

22 Annasuyamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 INDLAW KAR 99

23 Yusufalli vs The state, (1967) 70 Bom LR 76 (SC)
24 State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shankar Kurlekar, 1998 INDLAW MUM 8322
matter of detail. It can be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape
recorded statements. It can be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape
recorded statements. It may also be legitimately used for the purpose of shaking the credit of a
witness.25 For the use an earlier tape recorded statement, the identification of the taped voices is a
crucial and matter and indeed such proper identification is a sine-qua-non for the use of the
earlier tape recording. Where the voice is denied by the alleged maker thereof, a comparison of
the same becomes inevitable and proper identification of the voices must be proved by a
competent witness. The recording of the voice of a witness for the purpose of a comparison with
and identification of his earlier recorded voice can therefore, be allowed by the court and such
comparison is neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited under any statue.26

25 Dial Singh Narain Singh vs. Rajapal Jagan Nath AIR 1969 P&H 350
26 Nirmala vs. Ashu Ram, 2000 Cri LJ 2001