APPLICATION OF RES GESTAE IN

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Submitted by
Debanjana Chakraborty
B.A. Llb, Sem V
Section A
14040141017
1

CONTENTS

1. Introduction...3
2. The Concept...3
2.1 Meaning of Res Gestae3
2.2 Transaction Defined.5
3. Test for Res Gestae6
4. Judicial Status of Res Gestae.8
4.1 Expansion of the Doctrine.10
5. Conclusion...13

1. INTRODUCTION
Statements that constitute part of the res gestae are attributed a certain degree of reliability
because they are contemporaneous, making them admissible by virtue of the nature and
strength of their connection with a particular event and their ability to explain it
comprehensively. The law considers them as sufficiently reliable to overcome the expansive
coverage of the exclusionary hearsay rule, making admissible statements that would otherwise
constitute inadmissible hearsay. In understanding the nature of the res gestae exception to
hearsay and the manner in which it must be construed in individual cases by the Judiciary, it is
important to rely repeatedly on the underlying consideration that is often overlooked the
reliability of the statement.1
This paper is an attempt to answer the questions like how has res gestae been defined under
Common Law and to what extent has it been utilised as an exception to the hearsay rule, how
does the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, define res gestae, if at all and what are the relevant

1 "The Doctrine Of Res Gestae Law Essays." UKessays.com. 11 2013. All Answers
Ltd. 11 2016 <http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/common-law/the-doctrineof-res-gestae-law-essays.php?cref=1>.
2

provisions that deal with the transaction of an event and how are they used as an exception to the
hearsay rule.

2. THE CONCEPT
2.1 MEANING OF RES GESTAE
Res gestae is a Latin phrase which means "things done. Res gestae has no exact English
translation. A literal translation means something deliberately undertaken or done.
In VinodkumarBaderbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2 Res Gestae has been defined as Things
done, or liberally speaking, the facts of the transaction explanatory of an act or showing a motive
for acting; a matters incidental to a main fact and explanatory of it; including acts and words
which are so closely connected with a main fact as will constitute a part of it, and without a
knowledge of which the main fact might not be properly understood, even speaking for
themselves though the instinctive words and acts of participants not the words and acts of
participants when narrating the events, the circumstances, facts and declaration which grow out
of the main fact, and contemporaneous with it and serve to illustrate its character or these
circumstance which are the atomic and undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and are
admissible when illustrative of such act.
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 (i.e. by the witness who will
later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a
high degree of credibility. Statements which can be admitted into evidence as Res gestae fall into
three headings:
1. Words or phrases which either form part of, or explain a physical act,
2. Exclamations which are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and
3. Statements which are evidence as to someone's state of mind.
The Principle of Res Gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
reads as follows:
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 of at different
times and places
Facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must
be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can
be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence.
Thus Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine
what is a transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with
2 1998 INDLAW GUJ 22
3

the main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. Res gestae include
elements that fall outside the modern hearsay definition altogether, such as circumstantial
evidence of state of mind, so-called verbal acts, verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal
conduct. Because excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the
excitement flows from the event, excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the things
done) and hence, admissible despite the hearsay rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsay
exceptions for present-sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence of state of mind,
and statements made to physicians.
In Babulal v. W.I.T Ltd.,3it was observed that the statement of law in section 6 of the evidence
act is usually known as Res Gestae. The literal meaning of the word res is everything that may
form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status.
. The rule as to admissibility of evidence known as the Res Gestae rule has been declared to be
incapable of any precise definition and it has been applied to so many different and unrelated
situations that it has been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of Res Gestae
which will serve all circumstances seems insurmountable.[vi] It would be little short of
miraculous if one single doctrine of Res Gestae would suffice for every situation.
There must be a main or principal fact or transaction; and only such declarations are admissible
whichgrow out of the principal transaction and serve to illustrate its character, and are
contemporary with, and derive some degree of credit from it. The main transaction is not
necessarily confined to a particular point of time, but may extend over a long or shorter period,
according to the nature and character of the transaction
2.2 TRANSACTION DEFINED
A transaction, as the term used in this sec. is defined by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a
wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. It include both immediate cause
and effect of an act or event, and also its collection of relevant circumstances, the other necessary
antecedents of it occurrence, connected with it, at a reasonable distance of the time, pace and
cause and effect.4
A good working test of deciding what transaction is; is proximity of time, unity or proximity of
place, continuity of actions, and community of purpose. But the main test must be continuity of
action and community of purpose. The condition for admissibility of a statement made by a
person who was at the scene of occurrence is the proximity of time, the proximity of the police
station and the continuity of action. The expression suggests not necessarily proximity of time so
much as continuity of action and purpose.5
3 1956 INDLAW CAL 105
4 R vs Ring A 1929 B 296
5 Ganesh vs R, A 1931 P 52
4

A transaction may constitute a single incident occupying a few moments or it may be spread over
a variety of acts, declaration etc. All these constitute incidents, which though not strictly
constituting a fact in issue, accompany and tend to explain or qualify the fact in issue. All these
fact are relevant only when they are connected by proximity of time, unity or proximity of place,
continuity of action and community of purpose or design.6
Evidence which is connected with the principal subject matters of the charges as parts of one and
the same transaction is relevant.7 Two distinct offences may be so inseparable connected that the
proof of one necessarily involves proving the other, and in such a case on a prosecution for one,
evidence proving it cannot be excluded because it also proves the other.8
In Peoples v Lane 9Evidence as to other offences by the accused would be relevant and
admissible if there is a nexus between the offence charged and the other offences or the two acts
form part of the same transaction so as to fall within S.6. An entirely separate and disconnected
offence is not admissible merely because it occurred at or about the same time as the res gestae
of the offence on Trial.
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts
in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.10
This section admits a very large class of facts connected with facts in issue or relevant facts,
though not forming part of the transaction. Facts forming part of the same transaction are
admissible under the preceding section. Evidence relating to collateral facts is admissible when
such facts will, if established reasonable presumption as to the matter in dispute and when such
evidence is reasonably conclusive. The section provides for the admission of several classes of
facts which are connected with the transaction under inquiry in particular modes,
(1) As being the occasion or cause of a fact;
(2) As being its effect;
(3) As giving opportunity for its occurrence; and
(4) As constituting the state of things under which it happened.
6 Amritalavs R 42 C 957
7 R vsVajiram, 16 B 414, p. 430-31
8 Peoples vs Marble 38 Mich 117
9 100 California 379
10 Sec. 7 of Evidence Act
5

A fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it, but not part of the same
transaction, have occurred at the other times. Thus, when the question is, whether a person has
committed a crime, the fact that he had committed a similar crime before, is irrelevant.
In Annasuyamma vs. State of Karnataka 11property recovered form accused by the deceased,
murder of the deceased. The court said that unless it could be conclusively established that the
property was with the deceased at the time of the offence, the question of property would not be
good enough nexus with the murder.

3. TEST FOR RES GESTAE

In Article 3 of his Digest of the Law of Evidence, Sir James Stephen defines a transaction as;
a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a
contract, a wrong, or another subject of enquiry which may be in issue.
Suppose A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club. Here the transaction is the
crime of murder. That A beat B with a club, that A caused Bs death, that A had an intention of
causing Bs death are all in issue and form parts of the same transaction, and evidence can
always be given of such facts in issue under Section 5. But the words uttered by A at or about the
time of beating, or words uttered by B or by persons standing by, at or about the time of beating,
are not in issue. But they also form parts of the same transaction. No one beats another silently,
nor would the person beaten be silent while he was being beaten, nor would persons standing by
watch silently. The transaction includes all these utterances and, though not in issue, form part of
the transaction of murder, which is the subject of enquiry, and therefore are relevant under this
section.
The various tests suggested are as follows:
a) If the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given stand in the
relation of cause and effect or effect and cause, then they can be said to form part of the
same transaction. This test however is useless because every event is the effect of
innumerable effects. If all these causes and effects are to be treated as relevant and
evidence is permitted to be given of all these facts, the whole purpose of restricting the
evidence in a court of law to relevant facts would be lost. The time of the court will
wasted in listening to evidence of remote causes and distant effects.
b) Another test suggested is, facts connected by proximity of time and place would come
under the section. No doubt facts happening at about the same time and place can be
treated as closely connected and therefore relevant under the section. But this is not
enough, because the section itself contemplates the possibility of facts happening at
different times and places, being connected with the fact in issue, so as to form part of the
same transaction.
11 2002 INDLAW KAR 99
6

c) A third test suggested is that there should be a continuity of purpose and action running
through the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given. This, it is
submitted, is equally useless, as merely substituting one vague phrase for another.
In the English Law system, we come across a phrase res gestae which is equivalent to the facts
mentioned in Section 6. But, unfortunately, that phrase is not always used with that meaning.
We also find it used in the following senses:
(i) as equivalent to the fact in issue,
(ii) as equivalent to the details of the fact in issue, and
(iii) the fact in issue and surrounding circumstances.
The most popular test which is widely applied in most of the legal systems is however with
respect to words uttered at the time of the happening of the fact in issue. That test is that the
utterance must be spontaneous as well as contemporaneous with the fact in issue. If it is possible
that it might have been thought out and therefore not spontaneous, then it will not be relevant
evidence under this section.
Res Gestae- the subject matter of ss.6, 7, 8, and 9 and also of s.14 are treated in English and
American books under the head of Res Gestae. It is necessary to have a clear idea of the term
which is frequently found in all books on Evidence and is freely used in judgments. Acts,
declarations and incidents accompanying or explaining the transaction or facts in issue or which
themselves constitutes the facts or transaction in issue are considered as part of the Res Gestae
and admitted as original evidence and not hearsay.
Thus the exclamations, statements and complaints of an injured party or the complaint of a raped
woman immediately before, during or after the occurrence are relevant. These spontaneous
declarations accompanying an act are sometimes called verbal acts.
The principle of law embodied in Sec.6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of res
gestae recognized in English law. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in
issue, is so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction becomes
relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that hearsay
evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement on fact admissible under
S.6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediately of such statement or
fact in relation to the fact in issue. But, it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of
the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous
with the acts which constitute the offence or atleast 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.12

4. JUDICIAL STATUS OF RES GESTAE

The test of admissibility on one hand relies on the exact contemporarily approach laid down in
Bedingfields case 13 in contrast to the flexible and accommodating approach laid down in
Fosters case 14. It was precisely with a view to settle this ambiguity that the Privy Council in
Rattens case15 entirely dispensed with the test of contemporaneity and adopted the test of
spontaneity and involvement. Lord Wilberforce in Rattenscase contended that the test should
not be the uncertain one whether the making of the statement was in some sense part of the
transaction. This may often be difficult to establish and therefore he emphasised on spontaneity
as the basis of the test. He asserted that hearsay evidence may be admitted if the statement
providing it is made in such conditions (always being those of approximate but not exact
contemporaneity) of involvement or pressure as to exclude the possibility of concoction or
distortion to the advantage of the maker or the disadvantage of the accused.
Courts began focusing on how long the excited condition lasted rather than focusing on when the
statement was made and thus liberalized the strict timing requirement. Apparently reluctant to
explicitly follow Wigmore, judges first expanded the exception by categorizing statements as
contemporaneous enough.16
Like India present day rulings in England and America tend to indicate that the utterance must be
spontaneous or natural, and though not precisely contemporaneous must be substantially so.17 In
Teper vs Reginam18 it was held that there can be no fixed limit of time an each case must depend
upon its own circumstances. How slight a separation of time and place is sufficient to render
evidence of a statement inadmissible?
Where a witness in describing the offence asserted that B said: those ruffians who a year ago
took away Subhashini have again come. It was held that the time of the occurrence in respect of
the occurrence it is res gestae under S.6. But statement however made at the time of an
occurrence relating to a previous occurrence which took a year is not res gestae.19

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l185-Res-Gestae.html
[1879] 14 Cox CC 341
[1834] 6 C. & P. 325
Rattenv. Reginam, 1971 INDLAW PC 6
Commonwealth vs Burke, 159 N.E.2d 856, 864 (Mass. 1959)
SudiptoSarkar, V.R Manohar, Law of Evidence, 16th Ed. 2007, p.209
1952 INDLAW PC 1
Khijiruddinvs R, 53 C 373
8

Thus the principal of admissibility of declarations accompanying acts can be summarized as;20
1. The declaration (oral and written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant
thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the
declaration must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts
previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is
continuous.
2. The declaration must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the
narrative of a past.
3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different
person, e.g. the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot the
declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.
4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act,
declaration are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.
A spontaneous exclamation is admissible because under certain external circumstances of
physical shock a state of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties
and removes their control, so that the utterance which occurs is a spontaneous and sincere
response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.
In Ohio vs Roberts 21The traditionally cited principle behind this exception is that an individual
who makes a statement immediately after a stressful event lacks sufficient time or capacity to
fabricate a lie about what happened. Thus, this class of statements contains sufficient indicia of
reliability so as to be admitted despite its hearsay character.
In a case the accused had killed his wife and daughter. The deposition by the father of the
deceased that the father of the accused made a telephone call to him and said that his son had
killed the deceased was found to be not admissible. The question before the court was that was
that can the deposition of the accused father be admitted under S. 6 as a hearsay exception being
part of Res Gestae? In the absence of finding as to whether the information given by accused
father to father of the deceased that accused had killed his wife and daughter, was either at the
time of the commission of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form part of the same
transaction declined to accept the evidence as relevant under section 6.22
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao23 the appreciable interval between the
act of carnage and magistrates recording the statement recorded by the magistrate was found
inadmissible under res gestae.
20 Sarkar p.211
21 448 U.S. 56, 57 (1980)
22 Vasa Chandrasekhar Raov.PonnaSatyanarayanavsPonnaSatyanarayana 2000
INDLAW SC 326
23 1996 INDLAW SC 2361
9

In Bishna vs State of West Bengal,24 where the two witnesses reached the place of occurrence
immediately after the incident had taken place and found the dead body of Prankrishna and
injured Nepal in an unconscious state. One of them found the mother of Prannkrishna and Nepal
weeping and heard about the entire incident from an eye-witness and the role played by each of
the appellants, their testimony was held to be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act.
In all the cases mentioned above the test applied to make the evidence admissible was to
consider that was the statement was made at the spur of the moment without an opportunity to
concoct and fabricate anything. Where the judges are satisfied that the reaction was the most
immediate result of the circumstances being relevant to the facts in issue, they have allowed such
evidence to be admitted.
4.1 EXPANSION OF THIS DOCTRINE
Courts have slowly broadened the scope of this section to cases like domestic violence, child
witness etc.
Domestic violence and assault cases necessarily involve a startling event; they often include the
issue of excited utterances. In these cases it is only victims who can identify the alleged culprit.
So such testimony of the victims must be admitted. In India, women may not react just after the
crime of rape or sexual violence because they are under the influence of such gruesome event
that they do not respond immediately. It is possible that they respond after a day or two but such
statement spoken can still be admitted under res gestae. If it can be proved that victim was still
under the stress of shock then such statement can be admitted.
Usually cases of rape take place in isolation. So there is no eye witness to such event. Rape and
domestic violence cases are different than any other crime.
The testimony of children is often the subject of excited utterance debate. Usually whenever
there is a time gap, the transaction is said to end and any statement which do not form part of the
transaction is inadmissible. However in cases of children this rule is relaxed. The rationale for
expanding the exception for children emphasizes how children cope with stress because their
statements are often made well after events occur at the first safe opportunity to speak.25
In Uttam Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 26the child witness was sleeping with the deceased
father at the relevant time of incident and was awakened by the sound of the fatal blow of the axe
on the neck of the deceased. Seeing it, the child shouted to his mother for help by naming the
24 AIR 2006 SC 302 at p. 309 para 27
25 See Commonwealth vs Di Monte, 692 N.E.2d 45, 50 (Mass. 1998)
26 2002 INDLAW MP 79
10

accused as assailant. On hearing the sounds the mother and sisters of the child and other
witnesses gathered at the spot. This evidence was held to be admissible as a part of the same
transaction as such shout was the natural and probable as per the facts of the case. In this case if
child witness failed to react on the spot but spoke later, it could still be admissible under sec 6.
The following cases illustrate the rule in this section 6 :
Abduction
In a trial for abduction, a witness stated that he had seen three women, who were sleeping in the
same bari as the complainant and his wife, searching something at dusk. The women were not
examined and when the witness was asked what reply one of these gave, the judge rightly
excluded the evidence. The alleged search that evening cannot be treated as part of the same
transaction as the abduction at night; so S.6 cannot make it admissible and as the women were
neither parties to the case nor agents, S.8 is of no help. S.9 is equally inapplicable.
Adoption
In the majority of cases execution of a deed of adoption forms a part of the transaction of
adoption itself and is relevant under S.6.
Felony
Generally speaking, it is not competent to a prosecution to prove a man guilty of one felony by
proving him guilty of another unconnected felony, but where several felonies are connected
together and form part of one entire transaction, the one is evidence to show the character of the
other.

Illegal Gratification
Receipt of illegal gratification in the years 1877 and 1878 cannot be proved in order to establish
that he received the three sums of money mentioned in the charges for which he was tried. The
two sets of transactions are not so connected as would make them relevant to one another. S.6
cannot apply, because the payments of 1877 and 1878 are not so connected with the facts in issue
in this case as to form part of the same transaction.
Murder and Dacoity
In the absence of any explanation, the presumption arises that any one who took part in a robbery
also took part in the murder which constituted part of the same transaction. It has been held that
recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence
against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the
charge of murder where murder and robbery form parts of one transaction.
Rape
11

In rape, indecent assault and cries or complaint to any one made during or immediately after
occurrence, is admissible as part of the transaction. Such evidence is also admissible as conduct.
The statement is admissible not as evidence of the truth of the charge, but as evidence of the
credibility of the complainant. Where the raped girl made a statement to her mother after the rape
when the culprit had gone away and the girl came home from the scene of occurrence, it is not
admissible under S.6 as part of the transaction.
Statement of injured person, accused or by-stander
If a witness survives after making dying declaration his statement relevant and admissible as res
gestae under S.6. Where a person cried out on receiving gun-shot injuries and two persons, who
immediately reached the spot, were told by the victim that his nephew had fired at him, the court
allowed this evidence as part of res gestae being spontaneously connected with the transaction.
Statement to police
If on As information a criminal proceeding is started against B and in the course of investigation
into the case A makes a statement to the police, in a subsequent prosecution under Ss.192, 193
and 221 IPC, it is admissible as res gestae.
Unlawful assembly
Statements made by members of unlawful assembly of their determination to force their way
through a police cordon are evidence of res gestae.

5. CONCLUSION

Usually evidence is brought under res gestae when it cannot be brought under any other section
of Indian evidence act. The intention of law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are
dismissed due to lack of evidence. If any statement is not admissible under sec. 6 it can be
admissible under Sec.157 as corroborative evidence.
Court has always minded that this doctrine should never be expanded to an unlimited extends.
That is why Indian courts have always considered the test of continuity of the transaction. Any
statement which was made after a long time gap and which was not a reaction to the event is not
admissible under sec.6 of the Evidence act. But courts have permitted certain statement which
was spoken after a long time gap from the occurrence of the transaction, because there was

12

sufficient proof that the victim was still under the stress of excitement and so whatever was said
was as a reaction to the event.
The strength of Sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. The word transaction used in this section is not
distinct. It varies from case to case. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its
own merit. 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.

13