Doctrine of Res Gestae Vaishali Bahubalendra BASICS OF LAW Fri, Sep 18, 2020, at ,08:35 PM The Latin term res gestae means:- a transaction an event thing done the subject matter In general hearsay evidence is not admissible but res gestae is an exception to the hearsay rule, which is accepted by the courts. So res gestae as an expression includes everything that may be aptly considered and incidental to the event, which is under consideration or a matter of discussion. So in general res gestae may be defined as matters incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it including acts and words which very closely connected therewith as to constitute as a part of the transaction and in absence of which the main fact would be difficult to be understood.[1] They are events speaking for themselves and acts of participants, the circumstances, facts and declarations which are the creation of the main fact, are coeval with it and serve to exemplify its role. It may also be defined as those circumstances which are the reflex and undersigned incidents and which are admissible when illustrative of such fact. These acts may be separated from the main act by lapse of time. A transaction may even lapse for weeks. Things left undone as well as things did i.e. the incidents may consist of both saying and doing. They are acts talking for themselves and not what people say when talking about the acts. The acid test for admissibility of evidence as a part of res gestae is whether the act, declaration or exclamation is so intermittently interwoven or connected with the principal facts or even which is characteristics as to be regarded part of the transaction itself and so also whether it negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. The term res gestae has been used in two senses:- Firstly, in restricted sense words happening out of which the liability or right in question arises. So in a restricted sense, facts constituting res gestae must be so as to be connected with the particular transaction or with the fact which is under investigation so as to constitute a part of the same. In its broader sense res gestae covers all probable facts vide which res gestae are reproduced to the tribunal wherein direct evidence of the witness or perception by the court is unattainable. To exemplify as to what can be construed under this doctrine, an illustration is contained herein below: A and B are brothers, one day A was running behind B with a gun in his hand shouting that "today I shall Kill you (his brother B)". Both of them i.e. A running with a gun behind B, they both entered inside the park and jumped the boundary of the park. The people in the park witnessed this and also heard A saying to kill B and chasing B pointing a gun towards him. But after a while when both(A and B) jumped the boundary and were outside the sight of the people in the park a sound of the gunshot was heard and when sought for B's blood ridden dead body was lying near the opposite side of the park boundary. These series of circumstances are so interlinked that even if the people did not directly witness as to what happened on the backside of the boundary and merely heard everything, is admissible as forming a part of the same transaction, which negates the happening of any other circumstance, other than A killed B through the gunshot. Courts in England have been very rigid and cautious in using this doctrine. In R v Bedingfield[2], a woman suddenly came out of her room with a cut-throat and stated to her aunt, “O dear aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me". But this statement was denied by the courts to be construed as a part of the doctrine of resgestae, and was considered to be bad in law. But this case became an eye-opener and widened the scope of the doctrine and its arena as well. Further, in the case of Teper v R[3], a husband set fire to a shop of his wife. A police constable heard a woman shouting "your place burning and you going away from fire". The constable in his evidence stated that he saw a car in which there was a man resembling the accused. Hearing of those words by him, from a burning shop and nearly half an hour after the fire started. It was held that words to be admissible as words explaining an act to form part of res gestae, the utterance must, if not absolutely contemporaneous with action, be at least so closely associated with it in time, place and circumstances, that they are part of the thing being done. So also in the case of R v Christie[4] assault was made on a young boy. Soon after such assault, the boy made certain statements to his mother narrating of the offence and the man who assaulted him. herein Lord Atkinson has opined that the statement made by the boy was so separated by time and circumstances from the actual commission of the crime. The doctrine of res gestae in India This doctrine has been encompassed in the Indian legislative regime vide section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Section 6 of the contemplates as to the relevancy of facts forming the part of the same transaction, encompassing:- 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. The most important words in the above-mentioned section is that of "same transaction" reason being in requires connotations for understanding. So same transaction means a transaction in a group of facts, linked to be construed by a single name as an offence, a contract, a wrong, or any other subject which will be under inquiry. A transaction encompasses both the physical acts and the psychological acts or words which accompany the physical acts. When a fact is said to relevant vide application of the doctrine of res gestae it refers to the complete transaction from the starting point to the act of the accused until it has reached its end. So when the transaction is an amalgamation of several physical acts, resulting in a chain of such acts forming part of the same transaction they are considered to be linked together by:- the proximity of place continuity of action and community of transaction Psychological acts forming part of the transaction, involves words spoken by the person doing the act, or by the persons to whom they were done or even by the bystanders are relevant as they are a part of the same transaction. Conditions that can be encapsulated for admissibility of the statement under section 6 of IEA are envisaged below:- The incident or occurrence must be explained, elucidated, or characterised by the statement in some way or the other. There must not ant the time gap which could possibly give any hint or iota of doubt and so also should not be a narration of an event that occurred in the past. So spontaneity and contemporaneousness must be there. The statement must be strictly based on facts and must not be opinionated. The person who has been a participant to the transaction and the one who has observed the same as a witness must have deposed it. A bystander's statement would be relevant only if his presence at the time of the incident and he himself has witnessed the same. Cases in India wherein the doctrine of res gestae has been applied:- In case of Badruddin v. State of Maharashtra[5], there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused wherein the accused dragged the deceased from his house to the chowk area and began to beat him. One of the villagers who witnessed this incident ran to the village police (name- Patel), while the beating was in progress and other villagers also said the same to Patel. therefore the statement of Patel before the court that the villagers informed him of the accused beating the deceased was held to admissible and relevant under section 6 of IEA. Further, in case of Rattan Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh[6], the accused has grudge against the deceased (young married woman), as because she opposed sexy designs. The accused was tried for the murder of the deceased by shooting a gun. In this case, the following facts formed the part of the same transaction under section 6 of IEA:- the very act of assailant intruding into the courtyard at the dead of the night victim identification of the assailant her statement that the appellant was standing with a gun and that he fired at her as these acts are so connected or intertwined within themselves that there is no window of anything else happening and they form part of the same transaction. Then in case of Bishan v. State of West Bengal[7] the witnesses had come to the place of the incident immediately after the incident took place and found the dead body of the deceased and other injured victims in an unconscious state and also found the dead body of the deceased and other injured victims in an unconscious state and heard the narration of the incident from the injured and other eyewitnesses which were corroborated with the to the evidence of the prosecution and was held to be admissible vide section 6 of IEA. The above-mentioned cases be it India or of England have very well highlighted the rules as to the application of the res gestae. The application of this rule requires caution as the person who wants to seek benefit under this rule has to established each and every nitty-gritty of incident so to establish facts forming part of the same transaction, as under section 6 of IEA. The court has to apply this doctrine very cautiously as a simple mistake can bring the entire case in stake, the series of the transaction to as to form part of the same transaction have to be so inextricably connected so as to negate the happening of any other event apart from those accepted as hearsay evidence under the rule of res gestae, in relation to a particular event under the scrutiny of the court. [1] The Law Of Evidence, Dr. S.R Myneni , 2nd Edition, Asia Law House [2] (1879) 14 Cox CC 341 [3] 1952 AC 480 [4] (1914) AC 545 [5] AIR 1981 SC 1223 [6] 1997 4 SCC 161 [7] AIR 2006 SC 302