Indian Evidence Act 1872

Question
State the Indian position of the principles of resgestae as implanted in
section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
Answer
Introduction

Resgestae means "things done". It is the literal meaning of the Latin term
but Woodroffe defined it broadly. The first instance discovered of the use
of the term in English law occurred in Home Tookes trial for high treason.
( 25 Howells State Trials,444 (1794). 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.
History

The res gestae exception was first circumscribed definitively in the

decision of Cockburn C.J. in R v. Bedingfield. This case followed the
spontaneity principle to determine the admissibility of hearsay, while
ignored the need for reliability. In the year 1952 the Judicial Committee
formulated a flexible understanding of res gestae as an exception to the
hearsay rule. In Ratten Vs. The Queen the observation of the Privy Council
was that words spoken are facts just as much as any other action by
human being. The decision was followed in the celebrated case of R. Vs.
Andrews. However interestingly The Indian Evidence Act 1872 was before
the decision in Bedingfield case.
Res gestae in Indian Evidence Law
The principle of the rule of resgestae is embodied in section 6 of the
Indian Evidence Act 1872. The section deals with the facts connected with
the fact in issue so as to form "part of the same transaction regardless of
whether they occurred at the same time and place. That means the
relevance of the fact flows from the determination of whether it is part of
the same transaction. Section 6 enacts the law that acts, declarations and
incidents which constitute or accompany and explain the facts or
transaction in issue are admissible for or against either party as forming
parts of the res gestae. There is a need for near perfect contemporaniety
rather than reliability in express provisions under section 6 of the Act. The
Indian Judiciary displays regard in the underlying principle in several
cases/
In Gentela Vidyavardhan Rao V.State of A.P.1996 SC 2791 it was observed
that the rationale in making certain statements on fact admissible under
section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is on account of spontaneity and
immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it

is necessary that the statement or fact must be part of the same

transaction. in other words such statement must have been made
contemporaneous with acts which constitute the offence or at least
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.
Ingredients of Section 6
In a slight contrast to the traditional notions of res gestae the ingredients
of Section 6 are as follws:
1.The facts must be connected with the fact in issue.
2. The facts must form a part of the same transaction.
3.It is not important that the facts occurred at the same time and place.
Transaction means "a group of facts so connected together as to be
referred to by a single name, as a crime, contract, a wrong or any other
subject of inquiry which may be in issue. A transaction consists both of
physical acts and the words accompanying such acts.
Judicial Decisions
Overwhelming numbers of Indian authorities have restricted their
understanding of res gestae to Section 6 of the Act. The Supreme Court
clarified in Bhairon Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR 2009 SC 2603,
(2009)12 SCC 80 that to form particular statement as part of the same
transaction utterance must be simultaneous with the incident or
substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately
before or after its occurrence.
In a case of appeal against acquittal in State of West Bengal V. Sukesh
Naskar 2009 Cr LJ 2370 it was held that the evidence of witnesses that the
incident was promptly narrated to them by the victim before there was
any scope for any concoction or deliberation ,is admissible as res gestae
under section 6 of the Evidence Act and as such the acquittal of the
accused-responent was not proper.
Conclusion
In the doctrine of res gestae the issue of contemporaneity has been
difficult to accommodate and therefore in view of many commentators
this element was wrongly followed by the Indian Law. The word
transaction used in this section is not distinct. It varies from case to case.
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.