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.
Res Gestae – Section 6 Evidence Act
Res Gestae has been derived from Latin words meaning ‘’things done’’. It is mainly an exception to the hearsay rule of evidence which refers to ‘’an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence is inadmissible’’.
As per the stated words of the Indian Evidence Act, under section 6, facts which though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. This comes under the ambit of res gestae
Evolution of doctrine of res gestae
The doctrine of Res gestae doesn’t have a precise definition. It has been interpreted and applied in diverse ways and it has been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of Res Gestae, which will serve all circumstances seem unsurmountable. It was the Romans who put light on the concept of res gestae which meant acts that are done. In the case of Thompson v Trevanion, Lord Holton may have used this exception before the phrase ’res gesture’ has come to light.It was in the middle of the 1800s that this exception has been firmly established.
In Babulal v W.I.T Ltd, it was discerned that the statement of law in section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is usually known as Res Gestae. There is a diverse range of opinions when it comes to the understanding of res gestae, where, for some, it is seen as an advantage to complicated cases, while for others, this exception is denigrating and vague.
Lord Normand, in the case of Teper v R., described that res gestae could be admissible on two propositions, that the human declaration is both a fact as well a means of communication and the act should be so closely in sync with words in such manner that the significance of the action couldn’t be understood without the correlative words.
Nature and scope of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872
- Contemporaneous act: In the case of Kailash Chandrakar and another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh[8], the rationale was to form a particular declaration as a part of the same transaction or of the same incident or just contemporary to the incident so as to make reasonably certain that the speaker is still under the stress of excitement in respect of the transaction are facts to be considered.Such acts and statements can come under the doctrine of res gestae that are contemporaneous in nature, meaning, must be simultaneous or spontaneously done, during or immediately, before or after the act, but not after the act is over. Here the value of time is of significance. Res Gestae supports not only actual facts of the transaction and circumstantial evidence surrounding it but also the matters immediately preceding to and having a direct causal connection with it, as well as acts immediately following it and so closely connected with it as to form in reality a part of the occurrence, as explained by J.McKnight, State v. Fouquette.
- Transaction: it is defined as a crime, contract, error or any other subject of enquiry that may be in question by a single name, which includes both the immediate cause and effect of an act or event and also its collection of relevant circumstances, the other necessary antecedents of its occurrence, connected with it, at a reasonable distance of the time, pace and cause and effect. To resolve what forms a transaction
Relevance of evidence: Any evidence, which is relating to the main issue raised, is deemed to be relevant unless proven otherwise. Distinct offences may be linked so much that one offence is proof that the other offence followed right after it.Other conjoining offences by the accused would be pertinent and admissible if there is a relation between the offence charged and the other offences or whether the two acts form part of the same transaction to fall within Section 6. If the offences are so distinct, that they can barely form part of the same transaction, wouldn’t be relevant evidence and would be inadmissible.
Relevance of facts: Facts, preceding or succeeding the fact in issue, which constitute the state of circumstances under which they have occurred, or which provided an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. Facts, forming part of the same transaction will be admissible under the previous section.Evidence to corroborate where such facts have occurred, where reasonable presumption to the disputed matter has been established and where such evidence is reasonably conclusive can be admissible.Showing similar facts, which aren’t even forming part of the same transaction, can’t be a relevant fact. When some facts are alleged, they need to be proven with enough nexus with the offence to held admissible.
This section provides categories of facts which are connected with the transaction under inquiry in particular modes, which are as follows:
- As being the occasion or cause of a fact;
- As being its effect;
- As giving an opportunity for its occurrence; and
- As constituting the state of things under which it happened
Judgements relating to the doctrine of res gestae under Section 6, the Indian Evidence Act,1872
- Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh- Here, the considerable interval between the act of carnage and the recording by the magistrate of the statement, made the evidence inadmissible.
- Bishna and Ors vs. State of West Bengal- In this case, two witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence right after the incident has taken place and found the body of the deceased named Prankrishna and injured Nepal in an unconscious state. One of the witnesses heard the mother of Prankrishna and Nepal sobbing and heard the entire scenario from an eyewitness and the role played by each of the appellants. However, their testimony was inadmissible as it was recognised under the doctrine of hearsay evidence.
