DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA,

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

EVIDENCE LAW

[PROJECT WORK]

ON

RES GESTAE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Vipul Vinod Hardik Anand

Assistant Professor(Law), ROLL NO.-73 ; SECTION-A

DR. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW BA.LLB. (H); SEMESTER- V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Vipul Vinod sir for giving me
this topic to work upon and also helping me throughout the time
I was working on this project. This assignment has really helped
me to improve my knowledge in the field of Evidence law.

My gratitude also extends to each and every person who has

helped me in one way or other to complete this project…

HARDIK ANAND
Contents

1. Introduction
2. Section 6 of evidence act
3. Test for admission of evidence under doctrine
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
 INTRODUCTION
Res gestae translates from Latin as “things done,” and from that translation springs its
conceptualization both as an independent hearsay exception and as a shorthand reference to
intrinsic evidence of a singular transaction or event.

S. 5 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given of fact in issue and relevant
fact described under S. 6 to S.55. S. 6 states;

“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 of at different
times and places”

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 any time 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 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.1

Section 6 of evidence act

1
Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against Hearsay evidence. Res Gestae is based on the
belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without
deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for
misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (i.e. by the witness who will
later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a
high degree of credibility.
Statements which can be admitted into evidence as Res Gestae fall into three
headings-
1. Words or phrases which either form part of, or explain a physical act,
2. Exclamations which are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and
3. Statements which are evidence as to someone's state of mind.
(In some jurisdictions the Res Gestae exception has also been used to admit police sketches.)
The principle underlying Sec.6, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1932 the following is sometimes
termed as Res Gestae. This phrase means simply a transaction, “thing done”, “the subject
matter”, “Res Gestae” of any case properly consists of that portion of actual world’s happenings
out of the right or liability, complained or asserted in the proceeding, necessarily, arises.
Apparently the phrase is well established in the Law of Evidence. It is necessary therefore, to
understand what it really means. That has been used in two senses. In the restricted sense it
means world’s happening out of which the right or liability in question arises. In wider sense it
covers all the probative facts by which Res Gestae are reproduced to the tribunal where the direct
evidence of witness or perception by the court is unattainable. In restricted meaning Res Gestae
imports the conception of action by some person producing the effects for which the liability is
sought to be enforced
in action. To be clear, in the restricted sense “facts which constitute the Res Gestae must be such
as so connected with the very transaction or fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it.”
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. If any statement is made under the stress of excitement than
such statement form part of the same transaction and is admissible before the court of law.
The strength of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. Each case in criminal law should be judged according
to its own merit. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is
admissible under sec. 6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the Judge.
Whatever act or series of acts constitute, or in point of time immediately accompany and
terminate in. The principal act charged as an offence against
the accused from its inception to its consummation and whatever may be said by either of the
parties during the continuance of the transaction, with reference to it, including herein what may
be said by the suffering party, though in absence of the accused during the continuance of the
action or the latter, form part of the principal transaction and may be given in evidence as part of
Res Gestae of it. While, on the other hand, statements made by the complaining party, after all
action on the part of wrong-doer has ceased and some time has elapsed do not form part of Res
Gestae and should be excluded.
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that,
“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.”
It is to be noted that sections 7,8,15,32 52-55 and others of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1932 also a part of this rule.
This section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the technical expression
Res Gestae [i.e., the things done (including words spoken) in the course of a transaction], but
such facts must ‘form part of the same transaction.’ If facts form part of the transaction which is
the subject of enquiry, manifestly evidence of them ought not to be excluded. The question is
whether they do form part or are too remote to be considered really part of the transaction before
the Court. A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single
legal name, as a crime a contract, a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.
Roughly, a transaction may be described as any physical act, or a series of connected physical
acts, together with the words accompanying such act or acts. Every fact which is part of the same
transaction as the fact in issue is deemed to be relevant to the fact in issue although it may not be
actually in issue, and although if it were not part of the same transaction it might be excluded as
hearsay.

Res gestae has no exact English translation. A literal translation means “something deliberately
undertaken or done”2

Few areas of the common law of hearsay are in greater dispute than the doctrine of res gestae. 3
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.”4

Res gestae is an exception to the rule against Hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the belief
that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation
during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon
hearing by someone else (i.e. by the witness who will later repeat the statement to the court) and
thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility5.

2
See Eleanor Swift, The Hearsay Rule at Work: Has it Been Abolished De Facto by Judicial Decision?, 76
Minn. L. Rev. 473, 475 (1992).
3
Translation provided by Dr. Philip Pattenden, Dir. Of Studies in Classic, Peterhouse, Cambridge.
4
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”).
5
Barik Mita, Res Gestae, Accessed at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l185-
In Babulal vs. W.I.T Ltd.,6 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” 7Res 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 8as 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.9 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.10

Section 6 uses words like transaction, bystanders etc. It is important to understand the
implications of 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.11 A 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. 12But the
main test must be continuity of action and community of purpose.13 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 14. The
expression suggests not necessarily proximity of time so much as continuity of action and

6
1956 INDLAW CAL 105
7
Escorts Farms Ltd vs Commissioner  Kumaon Division 2004 INDLAW SC 1157
8
Julius Stone, Res Gesta Raegitata, Vol. 55 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 66
9
31 A CJS 978
10
Lund vs inhabitants &c. 9 Cush (Mass) 36, cited in Jones Ev s 358.
11
R vs Ring A 1929 B 296.
12
Banga Ch vs Annada 35 CLJ 527
13
R vs Loclay
14
Bandela Nagaraju vs State of A.P 1983 INDLAW AP 75
purpose.15 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.16

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

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 cannot 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. 6.17 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.18

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
15
Ganesh vs R, A 1931 P 52.
16
Amritala vs R 42 C 957.
17
 Hari vs State of U.P 183 Cri LJ NOC 62(All)
18
Venkatesan vs State 1997 INDLAW MAD 104
opportunity for any fabrication and therefore, it was admissible under s. 6.19 Statement by a
victim shortly after he sustained injuries that the accused inflicted them is admissible under
S.6.22 Transaction also ends 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?20 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. 21Evidence
which is connected with the principal subject matters of the charges as parts of one and the same
transaction is relevant. 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. 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 as 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.22

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 relevant23.

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

19
Krishnaram vs S, A 1964 As 53
20
Shyam Nandan Singh vs State of Bihar 1991 INDLAW PAT 12.
21
Venkatasubbiah vs R 48 M 640.
22
Peoples vs Lane, 100 California 379.
23
 Annasuyamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 INDLAW KAR 99
ALLEGED FACT: property recovered from 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.

BYSTANDER

The term by standers used in sec. 6 means all the person present at the time of incident. Where a
number of persons came to the spot immediately after a murder and was told by the eye
witnesses who the two culprits had been, their evidence is relevant. So, declaration must be
substantially contemporaneous with the fact in issue and must tend to illustrate ad explain it.

In Mahedra Pal vs. State24, the place where the murder took place was occupied by a number of
persons apart from the deceased and the eyewitnesses. Those persons who came immediately
after the murder and were informed by the eye-witnesses as to who the two accused has been,
their deposition was judged to fall within the ambit of Section 6. Where on hearing sounds of
gunshots from the house of the victim, his neighbours run to the spot within minutes and he told
them the names of the assailants who had shot at him and his wife, his statement to them was
relevant under this section 6.25

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. 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. 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 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. 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

24
AIR 1955 All 328
25
Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar 1996 INDLAW SC 1562
expressly nor impliedly prohibited under any statue.

TEST FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES-GESTAE

STATEMENT SHOWING MOTIVE AND INTENTION

A person’s statement that he intends to do something in the future is not admissible as evidence
that he did that thing. What someone says, where his intention is in issue, is very different matter
to investigating what someone says he is going to do in order to decide whether he carried out his
stated intention. In Wainwright case26, a girl left home telling her mother that she was going to
visit Wainwright. In Thomson case27, a girl said that she intended to perform an abortion on
herself. Both statements were held to be inadmissible because the diclarent intention was not
directly relevant. The issue was, respectively, whether there was a meeting with Wainwright and
whether the pregnant girl performed the abortion herself. The statement of intention may or may
not been carried out, in either event they did not accompany and define the fact in issue 28. but in
Buckley case29, it was held that the statement made by the police officer that he is going to meet
Buckley in course of his duty is admissible as there is a likelihood that a police officer who says
he has to meet someone in course of his duty will do just that, whereas the intentions asserted by
the girls in the above mention case may or may not have been carried out.

Evidence may be given of the statements which accompany conduct in order to define the motive
behind that conduct. Statements which are not contemporaneous with an act cannot define the
motive with which it was done because the declarant may change his mind between the
declaration and the act.

Sec. 8 deals with the relevancy of motive, preparation and conduct. It lays down that (1) a fact
which shows or constitutes a motive for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant; (2) a fact

26
1875 13 Cox CC 171
27
1912 3 KB 19.
28
 Rosmund Reay, Textbook Evidence, 3rd ed, 2001, p.137.
29
1873 13 Cox CC 293
which constitute or shows preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant; (3)
previous or subsequent conduct of any party or of any agent to any party to any suit or
proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceedings, or in reference to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, are relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue
or relevant fact.

In determining the fact whether a man charged with an offence, committed it or not, it is
important to know whether previous to the act he made certain preparations to do the act. Again,
the conduct, antecedent or subsequent, of the person committing an offence or of a person
against whom an offence has been committed, may be helpful in deciding as to whether a man
has committed an offence.

CONTEMPORANITY AND SPONTANEITY

The excited utterance exception admits hearsay statements made while the declarant was under
the stress or excitement of a particularly startling event, on the theory that such stress or
excitement precludes the kind of reflection necessary for the declarant to fabricate, and hence
renders such out-of-court statements sufficiently reliable. The state of excitement can continue to
exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration therefore may be admissible even though
subsequent to the occurrence, providing it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the
exciting influence continues. Statements made by the observers of events may be admissible as
part of the res gestae if they were a spontaneous consequence of the event.

As courts and commentators explained “Where a remark is made spontaneously and concurrently
with an affray, collision or the like, it carries with it inherently a degree of credibility and will be
admissible because of its spontaneous nature.”30

Debate over the admissibility of excited utterances centers on the timing between the statement
and the cause of the excitement. Over the course of two centuries, the excited utterance doctrine
has evolved from the concept of res gestae, requiring simultaneity between the underlying event
and the descriptive statement, to virtually abandoning a temporal requirement between the event
and the statement.

This general principle is based on the experience that, under certain external circumstances of
physical shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective
faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and
sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external
shock.31 The witness’ state of nervous tension was of utmost importance in Wigmore’s analysis.
According to Wigmore, this “immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses” lasts for a
“brief period.” During this short time, neither thoughts of “self-interest” nor other “reasoned

Carroll vs Guffey, 156 N.E.2d 267, 270 Ill. App. Ct. 1959
30

See John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at the Common Law p. 1362 (James H. Chadbourn
31

ed., 1978).
reflection” arise. Therefore, the utterance is “particularly trustworthy” and may be admitted
despite its hearsay character. Wigmore even hinted that such evidence is superior to in-court
testimony because of its spontaneity and closeness to the event.32

STAND OF JUDICIARY

The test of admissibility on one hand relies on the exact contemporarily approach laid down in

Bedingfield’s case 33in contrast to the flexible and accommodating approach laid down in
Foster’s case34. It was precisely with a view to settle this ambiguity that the Privy Council in
Ratten’s case35entirely dispensed with the test of contemporaneity and adopted the test of
“spontaneity and involvement”. Lord Wilberforce in Ratten’s case contended that the test should
not be the uncertain one whether the making of the statement was in some sense part of the
transaction. This may often be difficult to establish and therefore he emphasized on spontaneity
as the basis of the test. He asserted that “hearsay evidence may be admitted if the statement
providing it is made in such conditions (always being those of approximate but not exact
contemporaneity) of involvement or pressure as to exclude the possibility of concoction or
distortion to the advantage of the maker or the disadvantage of the accused.”

Courts began focusing on how long the excited condition lasted rather than focusing on when the
statement was made and thus liberalized the strict timing requirement. Apparently reluctant to
explicitly follow Wigmore, judges first expanded the exception by categorizing statements as
“contemporaneous enough.”

Like India present day rulings in England and America tend to indicate that the utterance must be
spontaneous or natural, and though not precisely contemporaneous must be substantially
so.36There can be no fixed limit of time an each case must depend upon its own circumstances.
How slight a separation of time and place is sufficient to render evidence of a statement
inadmissible? The bystanders’ declaration must relate only to that which came under their
observation. If there is an interval, however light, which allows of fabrication, it is not part of res
gestae, though it may be admissible under S. 157.

Where a witness in describing the offence asserted that B said: those ruffians who a year ago
took away Subhashini have again come. It was held that the time of the occurrence in respect of
the occurrence it is res gestae under S.6. But statement however made at the time of an
occurrence relating to a previous occurrence which took a year is not res gestae.37
32
Ibid
33
[1879] 14 Cox CC 341
34
57 [1834] 6 C. & P. 325
35
Ratten  v. Reginam,  1971 INDLAW PC 6
36
Sudipto Sarkar, V.R Manohar, Law of Evidence, 16th ed 2007, p.209.
37
Khijiruddin vs R, 53 C 373.
Thus the principal of admissibility of declarations accompanying acts can be summarized as;

The declaration (oral and written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto;
they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declaration must
relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent
thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.

· The declaration must be substantially contempororaneous with the fact and not merely the
narrative of a past.

· The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different person,
e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and by standers. In conspiracy, riot the declarations
of all concerned in the common object are admissible.

· Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act,

declaration are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.

A spontaneous exclamation is admissible because “under certain external circumstances of

physical shock a state of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties
and removes their control, so that the utterance which occurs is a spontaneous and sincere
response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.” The
traditionally cited principle behind this exception is that an individual who makes a statement
immediately after a stressful event lacks sufficient time or capacity to fabricate a lie about what
happened. Thus, this class of statements contains sufficient indicia of reliability so as to be
admitted despite its hearsay character. In order for the statement itself to be “the product of
impulse, not reflection,” the courts have historically required a lack of time between the
statement and the event. Because an excited utterance contains an inherent guarantee of
truthfulness and reliability, courts and commentators have not required that the statement be
necessary to proving the case to justify its admission.38

In a case the accused had killed his wife and daughter. The deposition by the father of the
deceased that the father of the accused made a telephone call to him and said that his son had
killed the deceased was found to be not admissible. The question before the court was that was
that can the deposition of the accused father be admitted under S. 6 as a hearsay exception being
part of Res Gestae? In the absence of finding as to whether the information given by accused
father to father of the deceased that accused had killed his wife and daughter, was either at the
time of the commission of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form part of the same

38
See Puleio, 474 N.E.2d at 1079-80.
transaction declined to accept the evidence as relevant under section 6.39In State of Andhra
Pradesh vs. Gentel Vijayavardhan Rao 40the appreciable interval between the act of carnage and
magistrate’s recording the statement recorded by the magistrate was found inadmissible under
res gestae.

In Bishna vs. State of West Bengal, 41where the two witnesses reached the place of occurrence
immediately after the incident had taken place and found the dead body of Prankrishna and
injured Nepal in an unconscious state. One of them found the mother of Prannkrishna and Nepal
weeping and heard about the entire incident from an eye-witness and the role played by each of
the appellants, their testimony was held to be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act.

In all the cases mentioned above the test applied to make the evidence admissible was to
consider that was the statement was made at the spur of the moment without an opportunity to
concoct and fabricate anything. Where the judges are satisfied that the reaction was the most
immediate result of the circumstances being relevant to the facts in issue, they have allowed such
evidence to be admitted.

In Article 3 of his Digest of the Law of Evidence, Sir James Stephen defines a “transaction” as;
“a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a
contract, a wrong, or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.”

Suppose A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club. Here the transaction is the
crime of murder. That A beat B with a club, that A caused B’s death, that A had an intention of
causing B’s death are all in issue and form parts of the same transaction, and evidence can
always be given of such facts in issue under Section 5. But the words uttered by A at or about the
time of beating, or words uttered by B or by persons standing by, at or about the time of beating,
are not in issue. But they also form parts of the same transaction. No one beats another silently,
nor would the person beaten be silent while he was being beaten, nor would persons standing by
watch silently. The transaction includes all these utterances and, though not in issue, form part of
the transaction of murder, which is the subject of enquiry, and therefore are relevant under this
section.
The principle of law embodied in Sec.6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of Res
Gestae recognized in English law. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in
issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes
relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that hearsay
evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement on fact admissible under
S.6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediately of such statement or
fact in relation to the fact in issue. But, it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of
the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous
39
Vasa Chandrasekhar Raov. Ponna Satyanarayana vs Ponna Satyanarayana 2000 INDLAW SC 326
40
1996 INDLAW SC 2361
41
AIR 2006 SC 302 at p. 309 para 27
with the acts which constitute the offence or atleast immediately thereafter. But if there was an
interval, however slight it may be, which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement
is not part of Res Gestae.
It will appear from what is said above that the declarations or acts are not admissible unless they
form part of the transaction in controversy, i.e, they must be substantially contemporaneous with
the fact in issue must tend to illustrate and explain it. The admissibility of the declaration or act
as part of the transaction depends on continuity of action as also proximity of time and
community of purpose. The following cases illustrate the rule in this section:

Abduction :
In a trial for abduction, a witness stated that he had seen three women, who were sleeping in the
same bari as the complainant and his wife, searching something at dusk. The women were not
examined and when the witness was asked what reply one of these gave, the judge rightly
excluded the evidence. The alleged search that evening cannot be treated as part of the same
transaction as the abduction at night; so S.6 cannot make it admissible and as the women were
neither parties to the case nor agents, S.8 is of no help. S.9 is equally inapplicable.

Adoption :
In the majority of cases execution of a deed of adoption forms a part of the transaction of
adoption itself and is relevant under S.6.

Felony :
Generally speaking, it is not competent to a prosecution to prove a man guilty of one felony by
proving him guilty of another unconnected felony, but where several felonies are connected
together and form part of one entire transaction, the one is evidence to show the character of the
other.

Illegal Gratification :
Receipt of illegal gratification in the years 1877 and 1878 cannot be proved in order to establish
that he received the three sums of money mentioned in the charges for which he was tried. The
two sets of transactions are not so connected as would make them relevant to one another. S.6
cannot apply, because the payments of 1877 and 1878 are not so connected with the facts in issue
in this case as to form part of the same transaction.

Murder and Dacoity :

In the absence of any explanation, the presumption arises that any one who took part in a robbery
also took part in the murder which constituted part of the same transaction. It has been held that
recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence
against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the
charge of murder where murder and robbery form parts of one transaction.
Rape :
In rape, indecent assault and cries or complaint to any one made during or immediately after
occurrence, is admissible as part of the transaction. Such evidence is also admissible as conduct.
The statement is admissible not as evidence of the truth of the charge, but as evidence of the
credibility of the complainant. Where the raped girl made a statement to her mother after the rape
when the culprit had gone away and the girl came home from the scene of occurrence, it is not
admissible under S.6 as part of the transaction.

Statement of injured person, accused or by-stander :

If a witness survives after making dying declaration his statement relevant and admissible as Res
Gestae under S.6. Where a person cried out on receiving gun-shot injuries and two persons, who
immediately reached the spot, were told by the victim that his nephew had fired at him, the court
allowed this evidence as part of Res Gestae being spontaneously connected with the transaction.

Statement to police :
If on A’s information a criminal proceeding is started against B and in the course of investigation
into the case A makes a statement to the police, in a subsequent prosecution under Ss.192, 193
and 221 IPC, it is admissible as Res Gestae.

Unlawful assembly :
Statements made by members of unlawful assembly of their determination to force their way
through a police cordon are evidence of Res Gestae.

Other cases :
Statements made by a testator at the registration of the will are admissible.
EXPANSION OF THIS DOCTRINE

The excited utterance exception is often applied in murder cases, which obviously contain the
requisite underlying shocking event. But courts have slowly broadened the scope of this section
to cases like domestic violence, child witness etc.

Domestic violence and assault cases necessarily involve a startling event; they often include the
issue of excited utterances. In these cases it is only victims who can identify the alleged culprit.
So such testimony of the victims must be admitted. In India, women may not react just after the
crime of rape or sexual violence because they are under the influence of such gruesome event
that they do not respond immediately. It is possible that they respond after a day or two but such
statement spoken can still be admitted under res getae. If it can be proved that victim was still
under the stress of shock then such statement can be admitted. Usually cases of rape take place in
isolation. So there is no eye witness to such event. Rape and domestic violence cases are
different than any other crime.

The testimony of children is often the subject of excited utterance debate. Usually when ever
there is a time gap, the transaction is said to end and any statement which do not form part of the
transaction is inadmissible. However in cases of children this rule is relaxed. The rationale for
expanding the exception for children emphasizes how children cope with stress because their
statements are often made well after events occur at the first safe opportunity to speak.

In Uttam Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh42the child witness was sleeping with the deceased
father at the relevant time of incident and was awakened by the sound of the fatal blow of the axe
on the neck of the deceased. Seeing it, the child shouted to his mother for help by naming the
accused as assailant. On hearing the sounds the mother and sisters of the child and other
witnesses gathered at the spot. This evidence was held to be admissible as a part of the same
transaction as such shout was the natural and probable as per the facts of the case. In this case if
child witness failed to react on the spot but spoke later, it could still be admissible under sec.

Hearsay and Res Gestae

Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In
other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while
testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.43

Hearsay evidence is the statement deposed by a person who has not himself witnessed the
happening of a transaction but has only heard of it from others. For example, where a person
who has witnessed an accident can give evidence about it. But his wife or any other person who
heard of the incidence from him cannot give evidence because such evidence amount to hearsay
evidence. This evidence can be permitted provided it from part of the transaction of the accident.
Here, the evidence is admissible as original evidence distinct from hearsay evidence since it
forms a part of the same transaction. Thus the doctrine of res gestae constitutes as one of the
exception to the rule of hearsay evidence is no evidence.

Section 6 is an exception to the general rule whereunder, hearsay evidence becomes admissible
but for the purpose of bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of sec6 what is required
to be established is it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an
interval to allow any fabrication.

42
2002 INDLAW MP 79
43
“Res Gestate”, findlaw via http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-
evidence.html#sthash.9E4AO093.dpuf accessed on 18.4.14
 Conclusion
Usually evidence is brought under res gestae when it cannot be brought under any other section
of Indian evidence Act. The intention of law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are
dismissed due to lack of evidence. If any statement is not admissible under sec. 6 it can be
admissible under sec.157 as corroborative evidence.

Court has always minded that this doctrine should never be expanded to an unlimited extends.
That is why Indian courts have always considered the test of “continuity of the transaction”. Any
statement which was made after a long time gap and which was not a reaction to the event is not
admissible under sec.6 of the evidence act. But courts have permitted certain statement which
was spoken after a long time gap from the occurrence of the transaction, because there was
sufficient proof that the victim was still under the stress of excitement and so whatever was said
was as a reaction to the event.

The strength of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. The word transaction used in this section is not
distinct. It varies from case to case. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its
own merit. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible
under sec. 6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the Judge.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

1. Dhirajlal, Ratanlal. The Law of Evidence. Gurgaon: Lexis-Nexis, 2011

2. Monir, M. Law of Evidence. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2006
3. Krishnamachari, V.Law of Evidence. Hyderabad: S.Georgia & Company,
2012
4. Lal, Batuk. The Law of Evidence. Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2007
5. Myneni, S.R. The Law of Evidence. Asian Law House, 2008

        Internet Sources

o   http://remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.in/2011/12/res-gestae-principle-exception-to.html
o   http://hawaiiopinions.blogspot.in/2008/02/res-gestae-die-hard-doctrine.html
o   http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/
o   http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/
o   http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2007.11.3.379
o   http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l185-Res-Gestae.html
o   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299111