HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.

STATEMENT AS RES GESTAE

Project submitted to Project submitted by

Ms. VINITA TRIPATHI TARUNA SHANDILYA
Faculty: law of evidence SEMESTER VII, Roll no: 180

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Ms.Vinita
Tripathi, for putting her trust in me and giving me a project topic and for having the faith in me to
deliver. Ma’am, thank you for the opportunity which will surely help me grow.

My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the
form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.

- TARUNA SHANDILYA
- (Semester VII)
- Roll no. 180

2|Page
 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION – .......................................................................................................................................... 4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE....................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTERIZATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………6-12

CHAPTER 1 SECTION 6 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT ............................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2 STATEMENT AS RES GESTAE– ..................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3 STATEMENT BYSTANDERS – ....................................................................................................... 9
TAPE RECORDER – ....................................................................................................................................... 10
TEST FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES GESTAE – ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 4 HEARSAY AND RES GESTAE –.................................................................................................... 12
RES GESTAE AN EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY……………………………,,,,,,,,,,,,,…..…………………………………................12

CONCLUSION -………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

REFERENCES -…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION –
Res gestae translates from Latin as “things done,” and from that translation springs its
conceptualization both as an independent hearsay exception and as a shorthand reference to
intrinsic evidence of a singular transaction or event.

S. 5 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given of fact in issue and relevant
fact described under S. 6 to S.55. S. 6 states;“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”

The principal of law embodied in S.6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. The rules
formulated in s. 6 is expounded and illustrated in S. 7, 8, 9 and14. 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. This section is used by the lawyers as a last resort so; there is not
much case law on this section. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of
such statement that there is hardly any time for concoction. So, such statement must be
contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.

Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what
is transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with 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.1

1
“Doctrine of Res Gestae”via http://engllb.blogspot.in/2013/01/doctrine-of-res-gestae_19.html
4|Page
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How has res gestae been defined under Common Law and to what extent has it been
utilised as an exception to the hearsay rule?
2. Why is a strict interpretation of res gestae problematic and how did the Common Law
courts overcome this difficulty while considering the relevance of admissible hearsay?
3. Has res gestae been effectively codified under the Criminal Justice Act, 2003? What are
the implications of this construction?
4. How does the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, define res gestae, if at all? What are the
relevant provisions that deal with the transaction of an event and how are they used as an
exception to the hearsay rule?
5. How does the formulation of res gestae under this enactment compare with its evolution
under Common Law?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used both primary and secondary sources as the foundation for the analysis
presented in this paper. Primary sources include statutory and case law, while secondary sources
include books and scholarly articles also collected by someone other than the user. Common
sources of secondary data include censuses, organisational records and data collected through
qualitative methodologies or qualitative research.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to investigate the manner in which the res gestae doctrine has been
characterised under Common Law, and to trace its development as an exception to the
exclusionary hearsay rule. It also seeks to evaluate the extent and nature of its import in the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the manner in which it has been construed by
the Indian Judiciary.

5|Page
CHAPTER 1- SECTION 6 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT –

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 (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.
(In some jurisdictions the Res Gestae exception has also been used to admit police sketches.)
The principle underlying Sec.6, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1932 the following is sometimes
termed as Res Gestae. This phrase means simply a transaction, “thing done”, “the subject
matter”, “Res Gestae” of any case properly consists of that portion of actual world’s happenings
out of the right or liability, complained or asserted in the proceeding, necessarily, arises.
Apparently the phrase is well established in the Law of Evidence. It is necessary therefore, to
understand what it really means. That has been used in two senses. In the restricted sense it
means world’s happening out of which the right or liability in question arises. In wider sense it
covers all the probative facts by which Res Gestae are reproduced to the tribunal where the direct
evidence of witness or perception by the court is unattainable. In restricted meaning Res Gestae
imports the conception of action by some person producing the effects for which the liability is
sought to be enforced
in action. To be clear, in the restricted sense “facts which constitute the Res Gestae must be such
as so connected with the very transaction or fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it.”
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 the
main transaction, it fails to be a Res Gestae and hence inadmissible. If any statement is made

6|Page
under the stress of excitement than such statement form part of the same transaction and is
admissible before the court of law.
The strength of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. 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.
Whatever act or series of acts constitute, or in point of time immediately accompany and
terminate in. The principal act charged as an offence against the accused from its inception to its
consummation and whatever may be said by either of the parties during the continuance of the
transaction, with reference to it, including herein what may be said by the suffering party, though
in absence of the accused during the continuance of the action or the latter, form part of the
principal transaction and may be given in evidence as part of Res Gestae of it. While, on the other
hand, statements made by the complaining party, after all action on the part of wrong-doer has
ceased and some time has elapsed do not form part of Res Gestae and should be excluded.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that,“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.”
This section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the technical expression
Res Gestae [i.e., the things done (including words spoken) in the course of a transaction], but
such facts must ‘form part of the same transaction.’ If facts form part of the transaction which is
the subject of enquiry, manifestly evidence of them ought not to be excluded. The question is
whether they do form part or are too remote to be considered really part of the transaction before
the Court. A transaction is 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 any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.
Roughly, a transaction may be described as any physical act, or a series of connected physical
acts, together with the words accompanying such act or acts. Every fact which is part of the same
transaction as the fact in issue is deemed to be relevant to the fact in issue although it may not be
actually in issue, and although if it were not part of the same transaction it might be excluded as
hearsay.
Res gestae has been defined as “Things done, or liberally speaking, the facts of the transaction

7|Page
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 automatic and undersigned incidents of a
particular litigated act and are admissible when illustrative of such act.”2

According to Black’s Dictionary, res gestae meant in other words, res gestae meant nothing more
than the modern words “same transaction or occurrence” and had something to do with
relevancy.

The literal meaning of the word ‘res’ is “everything that may form an object of rights and
includes an object, subject matter or status”3 Res Gestae has been described as a term of protean
importance and that there have been many definitions of the term. No evidential problem is as
shrouded in doubt and confusion4as is Res Gestae. 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.5 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
which grow 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.6

2
Vinodkumar Baderbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat, 1998 INDLAW GUJ 22
3
Escorts Farms Ltd vs Commissioner Kumaon Division 2004 INDLAW SC 1157
4
Julius Stone, Res Gesta Raegitata, Vol. 55 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 66
5
31 A CJS 978
6
Lund vs inhabitants &c. 9 Cush (Mass) 36, cited in Jones Ev s 358.
8|Page
CHAPTER 2-STATEMENT AS RES GESTAE

In Gentela Vijjay Vardhan Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh,7 the accused sneaked into
passenger bus with most inflammable liquid, petrol and match-box and then set it at blaze as a
result 23 passengers were roasted to death. The Magistrate recorded the statement of victim under
expectation of death. In view of appreciable interval between acts of carnage and Magistrate’s
recording of statement, the statements recorded by Magistrate did not form part of res gestae.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan8,the accused murdered his wife and daughter.
The father of the deceased stated that father of accused told him on telephone that his son had
killed the deceased.There was no finding as to whether the information given by accused’s father
to the deceased’s father that the accused had killed the deceased was either of the time of
commission of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form the part of same transaction. The
statement was held to be not relevant under Section6.

CHAPTER 3 – STATEMENT BYSTANDERS

7
AIR 1996 SC 2791
8
AIR 2000 SC 2138
9|Page
The term bystanders used in sec. 6 means all the person present at the time of incident. Where a
number of persons came to the spot immediately after a murder and was told by the eye witnesses
who the two culprits had been, their evidence is relevant. So, declaration must be substantially
contemporaneous with the fact in issue and must tend to illustrate ad explain it.

In Mahedra Pal vs. State9, the place where the murder took place was occupied by a number of
persons apart from the deceased and the eyewitnesses. Those persons who came immediately
after the murder and were informed by the eye-witnesses as to who the two accused has been,
their deposition was judged to fall within the ambit of Section 6. Where on hearing sounds of
gunshots from the house of the victim, his neighbours run to the spot within minutes and he told
them the names of the assailants who had shot at him and his wife, his statement to them was
relevant under this section 6.10

TAPE RECORDER –
A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible
under section 7 but such evidence must be received with caution. Where the tape recorded
conversation carried music before and after the recorded conversation and the same could not be
explained the court said that the only plausible explanation was that the tape was tampered. A
contemporaneous tape recorded of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible
under section 7. The manner and mode of its proof and its use in a trial is a matter of detail. It can
be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape recorded statements. It can
be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape recorded statements. It may
also be legitimately used for the purpose of shaking the credit of a witness. For the use an earlier
tape recorded statement, the identification of the taped voices is a crucial and matter and indeed
such proper identification is a sine-qua-non for the use of the earlier tape recording. Where the
voice is denied by the alleged maker thereof, a comparison of the same becomes inevitable and
proper identification of the voices must be proved by a competent witness.

TEST FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES-GESTAE –

9
AIR 1955 All 328
10
Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar 1996 INDLAW SC 1562
10 | P a g e
The primary question which the judge must ask oneself is-can the possibility of concoction or
distortion is disregarded?

To answer that question the judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular
statement was made, in order to satisfy him that the event was as unusual or starting or fanatic as
to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterance was an instinctive reaction to that
event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. In such a situation the judge would
be entitled to conclude that the involvement or the pressure of the event would exclude the
possibility of concoction or distortion, providing that the statement was made in conditions of
approximate but not exact contemporaneity.

In order for the statement to be sufficiently ‘spontaneous’ it must be so closely associated with
the event which has excited the statement, that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the
declaring was still dominated by the event. Thus the judge must be satisfied that the event, which
provided the trigger mechanism for the statement, was still operative.

Quite apart from the time factor, there may be special feature in case, which relate to the
possibility of concoction or distortion. As to the possibility of report on the facts narrated in the
statement if only the ordinary fallibility of human recollection is relied on, this goes to weight to
be attached to and not the admissibility of the statement and is therefore a matter of jury.11

If the exited utterance is relevant, the statement will be admissible if the answer to the second
question is also yes, and the answer to the other question is no,12 otherwise the statement is
inadmissible. A statement may be spontaneous even though made in response to questioning.13

11
R vs Pennel
12
R vs West, unreported, CA
13
R vs Smartt 2004 EWCA Crim 2072, 26.
11 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4 - HEARSAY AND RES GESTAE
Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In
other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while
confirming at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.

Hearsay evidence is the statement given by a person who has not himself observed the happening
of a transaction but has only heard of it from others. For example, where a person who has
witnessed an accident can give evidence about it. But his wife or any other person who heard of
the incidence from him cannot give evidence because such evidence constitute hearsay evidence.
This evidence can be allowed provided it form part of the transaction of the accident. Here, the
evidence is admissible as original evidence distinct from hearsay evidence as it forms a part of
the same transaction. Thus the doctrine of res gestae constitutes as one of the exception to the
rule of hearsay evidence is no evidence.

RES GESTAE AN EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY-

Section 6 is an exception to the general rule whereunder, hearsay evidence becomes admissible
but for the purpose of bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of sec 6 what is required
to be established is it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an
interval to allow any fabrication.

The res gsetaeis an exception to the principle that hearsay evidence is no evidence. In R.v.
Foster14, the deceased had been killed in an accident by the speeding truck. The witness had not
seen incident but only the speeding truck. The deceased stated to him what had happened with
him in the accident. The court held the statement of the deceased to the witness to bbe admissible
in evidence as res gestae.

14
1834
12 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION –

Generally evidence is brought under resgestae when it cannot be brought under any other section
of Indian evidence Act. The objective of law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are
rejected 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 stretched 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 effect to the event is not
admissible under sec.6 of the evidence act. But courts have allowed certain statement which was
spoken after a long time gap from the incidence of the transaction, because there was satisfactory
proof that the victim was still under the anxiety of excitement and so whatever was said was as a
reaction to the event.

The power of sec. 6 lies in its vagueness. The word transaction used in this section is not
different. It varies from case to case. Each and every case in criminal law should be judged
according to its own merit. When it is established that the evidence forms part of the same
transaction it is admissible under sec. 6 but whether it is dependable or not is the discretion of the
Judge.

13 | P a g e
 REFRRENCES –

1. Dhirajlal, Ratanlal. The Law of Evidence. Gurgaon: Lexis-Nexis, 2011

2. Monir, M. Law of Evidence. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2006
3. Krishnamachari, V.Law of Evidence. Hyderabad: S.Georgia & Company, 2012
4. Lal, Batuk. The Law of Evidence. Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2007
5. Myneni, S.R. The Law of Evidence. Asian Law House, 2008

Internet Sources

o http://remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.in/2011/12/res-gestae-principle-exception-to.html
o http://hawaiiopinions.blogspot.in/2008/02/res-gestae-die-hard-doctrine.html
o http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/
o http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/
o http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2007.11.3.379
o http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l185-Res-Gestae.html
o http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299111

14 | P a g e