Res Gestae under Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Admissibility of Statements in Law

• Imagine witnessing a crime and being asked to testify in court. Your statement's admissibility depends on certain legal principles.
• Res Gestae is a Latin term that translates to "things done." In legal contexts, it refers to facts closely connected to the main issue at hand.
• According to Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, these facts, though not the primary focus, are relevant if they form part of the same transaction. For instance, events occurring immediately before or after the main act fall under this doctrine.
• For a statement to be admissible in court, it must be contemporaneous with the event in question. These supplementary facts, known as res gestae, should be directly linked to the main incident.
• However, if the facts are remotely connected to the central issue, they may not be considered admissible in a court of law.
• For example, if a witness's statement about a crime scene includes details that are not directly related to the crime but happened hours after the incident, those details might not be admissible as part of res gestae.

Evolution of Doctrine of Res Gestae

• The concept of Res Gestae, although lacking a precise definition, has been interpreted diversely over time.
• Originating from the Romans, Res Gestae refers to acts that are performed.
• In the case of Thompson v. Trevanion, Lord Holton potentially applied this exception before the term "res gestae" became widely recognized.
• By the mid-1800s, the concept of Res Gestae had become firmly established.
• According to Babulal v. W.I.T Ltd, the legal statement in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is commonly referred to as Res Gestae.
• There exists a wide range of opinions regarding Res Gestae, with some viewing it as beneficial in complex cases while others criticize it as vague and derogatory.
• Lord Normand, in Teper v. R., explained that Res Gestae can be admissible based on the close connection between human declarations and actions.
• In Ratten v. R., the Privy Council accepted hearsay evidence related to a telephone call preceding a criminal incident, under the notion that it was part of the same sequence of events.
• Dean Wigmore criticized the term Res Gestae, suggesting that it should be rejected as it adds confusion to legal terminology.

Nature and Scope of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Definition of Transaction: In legal terms, a transaction encompasses a crime, contract, error, or any subject under inquiry that can be identified by a single name. It includes the immediate cause and effect of an event along with the relevant circumstances, antecedents, and context.
• Criteria for Identifying a Transaction: To determine what constitutes a transaction, we consider the following aspects:
  • Unity or proximity of place
  • Proximity of time
  • Continuity of actions
  • Community of purpose
• Admissibility Factors: The test of continuity of actions and community of purpose plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility of a transaction. Spontaneous human declarations are only admissible if they are closely connected to the issue at hand.
• Illustrative Example: In the case of Ratten v R, the victim's phone call just before the shooting demonstrated the continuity of actions and the fear she harbored against the accused, making it admissible as evidence.
• Contemporaneous Acts: Acts or statements that are contemporaneous with an incident or transaction are considered under the doctrine of res gestae. These acts must be closely connected in time and causally relevant to the main occurrence.
• Relevance of Evidence: Evidence related to the main issue at hand is considered relevant unless proven otherwise. Offenses can be interconnected to the extent that one offense serves as evidence for another.
• Relevance of Facts: Facts preceding or succeeding the main issue, which contribute to the circumstances of the transaction, are considered relevant. Such facts are admissible if they have a reasonable connection to the disputed matter.
• Categories of Connected Facts: Facts connected with the transaction are categorized based on their role in the occurrence, such as being the cause, effect, opportunity, or state of things under which it happened.

Understanding the Admissibility of Evidence under Res Gestae

• When considering the admissibility of evidence under the res gestae doctrine, it is crucial for the judge to evaluate specific factors. These factors revolve around determining if the circumstances were sufficiently sudden, surprising, or startling to impact the immediate thoughts and actions of the victim, leading to an instinctive response.
• To establish the contemporaneous nature of supplementary evidence, it must be demonstrated that the declaring party's consciousness was immediately influenced by the event, closely linked to the main incident.
• In essence, the criteria for determining the admissibility of a hearsay statement made by a third party or the victim regarding the identity of the attacker can be framed around the following aspects:
  • Relevancy of Identification: The relevance of the identification to the case at hand is a key consideration.
  • The Spontaneity of the Declaration: The spontaneous nature of the declaration can indicate its credibility and authenticity.
  • Possible Opportunity for the Concoction: Assessing whether there was a chance for the statement to be fabricated or manipulated.
  • The Real Possibility of Error: Considering the potential for inaccuracies or mistakes in the identification process.
• For instance, in a robbery case where a witness immediately points to the perpetrator while still under the shock of the event, their identification may be deemed more reliable due to its spontaneity. On the other hand, if there was a significant time gap between the incident and the identification, the possibility of error increases.

Landmark Judgements on the Doctrine of Res Gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayan and Ors: In this case, the accused had murdered his wife and daughter. The accused's father informed him over the phone that his son had committed the crime. The court deliberated on whether the father's statement could be considered under the doctrine of res gestae. Since the timing of the phone call was uncertain, and it was unclear whether the information was conveyed immediately after the incident, the court deemed this evidence inadmissible under the principle of res gestae.
• Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: In this instance, a significant gap between the crime and the recording of the statement by the magistrate rendered the evidence inadmissible.
• Bishna and Ors vs. State of West Bengal: In this scenario, two witnesses arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident occurred. They observed the deceased and an injured individual, and one of them overheard details from an eyewitness regarding the roles of the accused. However, their testimony was considered hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible.

Expansion of the doctrine of res gestae

• Courts have progressively broadened the scope of the res gestae provision, encompassing scenarios such as domestic violence and child testimony.
• In instances of domestic violence or physical assault, there is often a triggering event that leads to spontaneous statements, like excited utterances, where victims may only identify the alleged perpetrator.
• Regarding rape or sexual offenses, women may need time to recover from the trauma before providing a response. These delayed responses should fall under the purview of res gestae. If it can be established that the victim was in a state of shock, such statements can be considered admissible.
• Due to the private nature of rape cases, eyewitnesses are typically scarce.
• Excited utterances are frequently observed in the testimonies of children. In such cases, the spontaneous nature of their statements is taken into account.

Example: Uttam Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh

• In the Uttam Singh case, a child witnessed the death of his father at the hands of an attacker. Despite not providing an immediate statement, the child's testimony was deemed admissible under section 6.
• When the offender struck the deceased with an axe, the child, in a state of fear, called out for his mother for help.
• Children may take time to process traumatic events before speaking up, and their statements are often made when they feel safe to do so.

Exception to Hearsay

• When someone shares information about an event they did not directly witness, it is considered hearsay evidence.
• Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in court because the person sharing the information is not part of the event or transaction.
• For example, if C tells D about a crime witnessed by C, D cannot testify about it in court because D did not witness the event firsthand.
• Hearsay evidence is not reliable for several reasons, including the lack of cross-examination of the original witness and the potential for fabrication.

Admissibility Criteria

• Testimony based on personal observation is admissible if it is relevant to the case at hand.
• However, if the truth of the statement is crucial, hearsay evidence may not be admissible.

Challenges with Hearsay Evidence

• Witnesses providing hearsay evidence are not available for cross-examination, which undermines the reliability of the information.
• Such witnesses are not typically sworn in, raising questions about the accuracy of their statements.

Res Gestae Exception

• Res Gestae is an exception to the hearsay rule, allowing certain statements to be admitted as evidence.
• This exception applies when the statement is made contemporaneously with the event and is part of the same transaction.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the admissibility of statements made in the heat of the moment or under the influence of shock and excitement hinges on the speaker's connection to the ongoing events or crisis. For a statement to be admissible, it must not be a detached narration of a past event but should actively contribute to the unfolding crisis. Whether oral or written, these statements need to be closely related to the core issue and must describe the immediate context of the incidents they address. Importantly, such statements cannot function as independent or subsequent facts after the occurrence of the act.
• Furthermore, the declaration can be made by the individual involved in the offense, the party to the offense, or even a third party. Given the doctrine's inherent vagueness, courts have adopted the "test of continuity of transaction" to assess the admissibility of statements. Even if there is a time gap between the occurrence of the incident and the statement, the courts may consider them admissible if it can be demonstrated that the speaker was in a state of shock or excitement during the event.