DOCTRINE OF RES-GESTAE

-Moumita Mallick

ABSTRACT- Through this short article the author wants to put forward the various

aspects of the doctrine of Res gestae as found under section 6 of The Indian

Evidence Act,1872. The term has Latin origin and it means things done or

“actus”. However this meaning has underwent a metamorphosis and now it

encompasses various aspects under it. The author has tried to explore the

scope and ambit of this theory in concise form highlighting the most

essential and important case laws.

The doctrine of Res gestae is portrayed under section 6 Of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 in the following words-
“Facts which do not in issue it with the facts in issue so as to form a part of the same
transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time at same place at
different time and different place – Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

Res gestae, originally was used by the Romans to mean acts done or actus.
The English and American writers described it as facts that form the same transaction. Res
gestae are those facts which automatically or naturally form a part of the same transaction.
They are the acts talking for themselves. These facts become relevant due to their
association which main transaction which itself is a relevant fact in the nature of fact in
issue. Circumstantial facts are admitted as forming a part of res gestae i.e. it being a part of
 original proof of what has taken place. Statements may also accompany physical happenings
like gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amounts to res gestae.

Few Illustrations—
 The cry of an in injured or wounded person.
 The cry of witness on seeing a murder happening
 The sound of a bullet being shot.
 The cry for help by the person being attacked.
 Gestures made by the person dying etc

The statements made or acts done has to be spontaneous and simultaneous to

the main transaction. They may be made or done before or after the main transaction, but
the time gap has to be very little so as to render it to be a res gestae i.e. it has to be done or
made immediately before, or during or immediately after the occurrence of the main
transaction. Where time gap is enough for fabrication or concoction, then statement or act
shall not fall under section 6.

According to Section 6 the facts forming a part of the same transaction may
or may not occur at the same place or same time. For example in the case of
RATTEN V. QUEEN1 the victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator
could connect her to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead
body from her house from where the call was made and the time of death and the time of
phone call was almost the same. The call made to the police came under the purview of
section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband’s defence that he accidentally fired on
his wife.

1
1972] A.C. 378, [1971] UKPC 23, [1971] 3 All ER 801, (1972) 56 Cr App R 18, [1971] 3 WLR 930
 Few case laws covering various aspects of the principle of res gestae as
envisaged under section 6-

1. The act may not have occurred at the same place - RATTEN V. QUEEN.

2. The time gap should be very little OR contemporaneous so that there is no time to
fabricate or make up a story-
SUKHAR V. STATE OF UP2 - the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an
alarm. On hearing the alarm the witness reached almost at the same time when the victim
told that the accused at shot him. The victim did not die. The accused under section 307
IPC,1860 (punishment for attempt to murder). However during the trial the victim died for
some other cause. Despite being hearsay evidence, the statement of the witness was held to
be admissible as it formed a part of the same transaction. The event of the victim being shot
and the witness being told by the victim about the accused was contemporaneous.

3. Act of witness during the same time and same place where the offence was committed-
SAWAL DAS V. STATE OF BIHAR.3 - The cry of the children from the house skilled by
their father became a part of the same transaction and therefore fell under section 6 and
became admissible as valid evidence.

4. Gestures made by the victim when dying-

QUEEN V. ABDULLAH. 4- The gesture made by the victim who was dying, that the accused
had killed her came under the purview of res gestae.

5. When FIR becomes Res gestae- SHYAM NANDAN SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR5 - An
FIR was lodged soon after the incident by persons who witnessed. It was held to be a part
of the happening so it came under the purview of section 6.
2
(1999) 9 SCC 507
3
1974 AIR 778, 1974 SCR (3)74
4 (1885) ILR 7 All 385
5 1991 (39) BLJR 1298, 1991 Cri LJ 3350
 Therefore we can see that what originally started by the Romans meant only
acts done (actus) to form res gestae, now covers all acts done or statements made during the
happening of the crime, at the same time or same place of the crime or different times at
different places, is said to be forming a part of the same transaction and thereby admissible
by virtue of doctrine of res-gestae U/S 6 of INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Batuk Lal , The Law Of Evidence(2015) ISBN-13: 978-9384852214
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Rattan Lal & Dhiraj Lal , “The Law of Evidence”, 20th Nagpur : Wadhwa &
Company, 2004
4. Sarkar M.C. and S.C. Sarkar, “Law of Evidence”, 16 th Ed., Nagpur: Wadhwa &
Company, 2007
5. Singh, Avtar, “Principles of Law of Evidence”, 14th Ed., Allahabad: Central Law
Publication, 2004.