Introduction:
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’’
“Walking on the edges of the footpath, you hear a screeching voice of a woman, turn to the left and exclaim in shock “oh my god, someone help” when you witness her being robbed off by a gang of four men. Will your statement be admissible in the eyes of law?”
Section 6 of Evidence Act embodied the concept of Res Gestae.
Section 6 Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.-
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.
ILLUSTRATION-
A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
Basis of the rule
Every fact is a part of other fact there is no fact which is unconnected with other fact. Section 6 Lays down that the facts which are so connected with the facts in issue that they form part of same transaction are relevant fact.
Same Transaction
The Definition of the word is given by Stephen who says – A transaction is a group of facts, connected together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. In order to constitute same transaction, following factors are to be considered:
- It consists of series of facts i.e. physical acts as well as verbal acts or words accompanying such acts;
- To resolve what forms a transaction, the following points need to be taken into consideration:
- Unity or proximity of the place
- Proximity of time
- Continuity of actions
- Community of purpose
Mainly it is the test of continuity of actions and community of purpose that make it admissible in nature. If the human declaration is spontaneous but detached from the concerned issue, it wouldn’t be admissible.
Illustration
A have an intent to Commit Robbery in a Bank. He Borrowed a Bike and weapon for this. He Reached the Bank on Bike with Weapons.When he reached then people at the Bank shouted and People who were around the bank also heard the people shouting. A made a statement that ” if money is not given to me then I will shoot you all.” A Got the money and he escaped.
Here A has done a Transaction i.e. Robbery and he will be tried for the same. Facts which forms the part of this Transaction(Robbery) are Connected Facts and will be Relevant.
In A’s Trial the Fact in Issue will be Whether A has Committed Robbery (Transaction) or not and the facts which are connected with Transaction as to form part of it will be Relevant. These Facts will be Relevant even if they have occurred at same time and same place or different times or different places.
Res Gestae:
The Principal underlying section 6 is termed as Res Gestae. This phrase simply means ‘things said and done in the course of transaction”. The Facts Which Surround the happening of an event are its Res-Gestae.
Every case that comes before a court of law has a fact story behind it. Every fact story is made of certain acts, omissions and statements. Every such act, omission or statement as throws some light upon the nature of the transaction or reveals its true quality or character should be held as a part of the transaction and the evidence of it should be received.
Some Points related to Res Gestae:
- Acts or Omissions as Res-Gestae – How Acts and Omissions Forms Part of the Same Transaction: Nature of the Transaction itself indicates what should be its essential parts.
- Where For Example, There is a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of India by force, funds for the purpose are raised at Calcutta, arms and ammunition at Madras and a task force is trained at Bombay. All these acts, though isolated in time and space, are still the parts of the same transaction.
- Where the question is whether certain goods were delivered in the performance of a contract. The fact that they were delivered to several intermediaries in the process of ultimate delivery to the buyer is relevant, each successive delivery being a part of the transaction.
- If libel is contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence (letter), the whole correspondence is relevant.
- Statements as Res-Gestae – How Statements Forms Part of the Same Transaction: The question is to what extent such statements can be regarded as parts of the transaction. Some important guidelines in this regard are:-
- Spontaneous and simultaneous utterance is a part of the transaction, e.g. what a person states during an occurrence in respect of the occurrence itself.
- Statement must be contemporaneous with the fact, i.e., statement made either “during or immediately before or after its occurrence” and of such a nature that the event speak for themselves (and not what the people say when talking about the event). The words must be at least de recenti.
- If the statement is made after the act is over and its maker has had the time for reflection and deliberation (fabrication); and/or it is a mere narration of past events, then it is not relevant. The statement should be an exclamation “forced out of a witness by the emotion generated by an event” (G. Vijayavardhan Rao v State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC 2971).
- The statement must be a statement of fact and not an opinion.
Case Laws :
Ratten v. The Queen (1971), A man was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the shot went off accidently. There was evidence to the effect that the deceased telephoned to say: “Get me the police please”. Before the operator could connect the police, the caller, who spoke in distress, gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter the police came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Her call and the words she spoke were held to be relevant as a part of the transaction which brought about her death. Her call in distress showed that the shooting in question was intentional and not accidental. For no victim of an accident could have thought of getting the police before the happening.
Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997) SC
Where shortly before the incident in which a woman died of gun shot, she exclaimed that a man was standing near her with a gun in his hand, the statement was held to be sufficiently proximate in time to the happening as to be a part of the same transaction.
Sukhar v. State of U.P., 1999, SC:
The victim was shot by the accused and he raised an alarm. When a witness rushed to the spot, the victim told him that it was the accused who shot at him. The victim survived and so the accused was charged with an offence under Section 307, IPC. However, during the pendency of the trial, the victim died because of some other cause. The question arose whether the witness could give evidence of what the victim told him. In the present case, the Court held that the evidence of the witness is admissible as res gestae.
The Court observed the statements sought to be admitted, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made almost contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication.
3. Hearsay and Res-Gestae – How Hearsay Evidence is admitted as Res-Gestae.
Hearsay evidence means the statement of a person who has not seen the happening of the transaction, but has heard of it from others. Hearsay evidence are not admitted However the doctrine of Res-Gestae constitutes an exception to the principal of hearsay.
A killed B, where C was the sole eye witness. C shared this news with D. If D testified whatever C saw in the court, it would be held inadmissible because he wasn’t part of the event nor did form part of the same transaction. He just heard it from C and said it. This is called hearsay evidence and is held inadmissible.
It’s admissible when a person testifies about what he or she has seen or heard if it’s relevant to the issue. However, it’s not admissible if the truth of the statement needs to be weighed down. Hearsay isn’t the best evidence because of the following reasons i.e., the witness isn’t available for cross-examination; he isn’t put on oath or affirmation; it carries an inherent danger of unreliability through repetition of facts stated in the chain of communication and possibility of fabrication.
Res gestae is an exception to this doctrine because it includes the element of contemporaneity and forms part of the same transaction.
Case Laws:
R. v. Foster (1834)
The prisoner was charged with manslaughter in killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the vehicle driven by at a very rapid rate, but did not see the accident. Immediately after, on hearing the victim groan, he went up to him and asked him what was the matter. The deceased then made a statement as to the cause of the injury. The court held that “what the deceased said at the instant, as to the cause of the accident, is clearly admissible”. Although it was a derived knowledge, it being a part of Res-Gestae was Admissible.
Bishna and Ors vs. State of West Bengal 1996 SC/0719
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.
Conclusion
It is now evident that the involvement of the speaker in the pressure of the drama or the concatenation of events leading up to the crisis needs to be established. As long as the statement isn’t made by the mere narration of a detached prior event to show the disengagement of the speaker from the main issue, it can be made admissible.
The statements, either oral or written, must be made with concurrence to the main issue and not merely accompany the act. They must be descriptive about the immediacy of the statements relating to the occurrence of such incidents. Besides, they can’t be independent facts or subsequent facts after the act is over.
