A PROJECT

ON RES
GESTAE
Submitted to
Mr. Deevanshu Shrivastav
Asst. Professor ,
School of Law

Submitted by:
Nikhilesh Mallick
2015BBLH024
What is Res
Gestae?
1. Res gestae literally means things done. It
refers to all facts so connected with a fact in
issue, and are incidental to it. they are
admissible as truth of its contents although
they may be hearsay, or self serving statement
and inadmissible in evidence.
2. The res gestae principle is embodied
in Section 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Evidence
Act 1950. The statement in order to constitute
res gestae can be made by the parties to the
transaction or even by bystanders.
3. However, the statement should have been
made at or about the same time the act was
done. Contemporaniety or spontaniety must be
shown before the statement is made
admissible.
4. For example, A is accused of murder of B by
assaulting him. Whatever was said by A or B
or bystanders at the time of assault or shortly
or after it, may be relevant as it forms part of
the whole transaction.
Another example of
Res Gestae.....

Example: Imagine then a young woman standing on the

side of a main road (the witness). She sees some
commotion across the street. On the opposite side of the
road to her she sees an old man shout "The bank is
being robbed' as a young man runs out of a building and
away down the street. The old man is never found (so
can't appear in court and repeat what he said) but the
woman repeats what she heard him say. Such a
statement would be considered trustworthy for the
purpose of admission as evidence because the statement
was made concurrently with the event and there is little
chance that the witness repeating the hearsay could
have misunderstood its meaning or the speaker's
intentions.
Meaning Of Res Gestae

Res gestae is a Latin phrase with a meaning that connotes (to

Suggest or PEQ a fact or an event. Literally it means "the
thing done". The phrase is used in various senses in the law of
evidence but more particularly to justify or explain the
admission of the use in certain circumstances of words, which
might otherwise be inadmissible. Words are said to be
admissible when they accompany, and explain a relevant fact
or a fact in issue. declarations to be admitted as part of res
gestae, the following conditions must be met:

1. The words must explain "or qualify"; for example, the act
of handing over or receiving money can be construed either
as a loan, a gift or a repayment.
2. The statement must have been made contemporaneously
(simultaneous, concurrent, happening during the same
period of time) with the act, i.e., made either during, or
immediately before or after its occurrence, but not at Such
interval (gap) as to allow of fabrication, or to reduce them
to mere narrative (story or tale) of a past event. Case laws,
however, allow the admissibility of declarations made not
exactly at the time of the commission of the events which
excited them, so long as they were closely connected to the
events and made spontaneously.
Eg. The culprit had big eyes, big ears and by teeth Satistically the chance of
being anyone other than the defendant is only one in 12 million.
 Res Gestae: Its
Application In
England

The basis for the admissibility of the evidence as part of res

gestae is its close connection to the facts in issue as to form
part of the transaction out of which the facts in issue arose.

In R v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC 341, however,

evidence was excluded as lacking the necessary
contemporaneity where, a minute or two after the prisoner
was seen going into a house, the victim of the crime came
suddenly out with her throat severely cut and said to her aunt
"Oh, Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me!". The words
so uttered were excluded by Cockburn CJ either as a dying
declaration (because she was not in fear of death then) or as
res gestae. He observed: “It was not part of anything done, or
something said while something was being done, but
something said after something done. It was not as if, while
being in the room and while the act was being done, she had
said something which was heard'. This means that the
statement made by the victim before she died was not
admitted as part of the res gestae as it was made after the
event.
Continued.......

In R V. Teper 1952 AC 481, a statement by the bystander that

"Your place burning and you go away from the fire' which
was overheard by a police officer, was not admitted as part of
res gestae.
Lord Norma said: "It is essential that the words sought to
be proved ... should be, if not absolutely contemporaneous
with the action or event, at least SO clearly associated
with it in time, place and circumstance that they are part
of the thing being done and not merely a reported
Statement.

Thus, the requirement of contemporaneity, that is the

Statement must be made at the moment of the act, explaining
the act itself, accompanying it as applied in Bedingfield was
thought to be too strict.

If we look at the decision of Bedingfield case, it was thought

to be too strict. However, this decision was overruled in the
case of Ratten v. R |1972) AC 378 where under common law,
the doctrine of res gestae was defined in liberal and wider
terms.
Continued......

Hence, the requirement was relaxed in the case of Ratten v. R.

In Ratten v. R, the facts in this case were that the appellant
was convicted of the murder of his wife by shooting her with
a shotgun. His defence was that the gun had discharged
accidentally while he was cleaning it. To rebut that defence,
the prosecutor called for the evidence of a telephone operator,
who stated that shortly before the time of the shooting, she
had received a call from the address where the deceased lived
with her husband.
The Witness said that the call was from a female, who in a
sobbing Voice and hysterical state said, "Get me the police,
please!” and gave the address, but before she could make the
connection to the police station, the caller hung up. In this
regard, Lord Wilberforce said: "Evidence would have been
admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there
a close association in place and time between the Statement
and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement
came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice
used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced
from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary
events'.
Continued......

The Privy Council held that the telephonist's evidence was not
hearsay and was properly admitted because of its relevance to
the issues. The Privy Council did however consider the fact
that the evidence, in a way, did contain a hearsay element,
namely, that the words as used by the wife did involve an
assertion of the truth of the fact that she was being attacked by
her husband.

It was held, nevertheless, that the evidence would have been

admissible as part of res gestae because, not only was there a
close association of place and time between the statement and
the shooting, but the way in which the statement came to be
made, i.e. in a call for the police, and the tone of voice used,
showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from
the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary event.
Continued..........

Lord Wilberforce, in the circumstances, laid down the rule

that to be part of res gestae, it is not necessary for a statement
to be contemporaneous, provided that:
(i) the statement is so clearly made in circumstances of
spontaneity or involvement in the event and
(ii) the possibility of concoction can be disregarded. It is to be
noted that in Bedingfield's case, the action must be
contemporaneous and spontaneous under common law and
the act must have happened before the actual incident,
whereas in Ratten's case, the statement and conduct are not
exactly contemporaneous, but are enough to be proximately
contemporaneous and it also provides that the Statement or
act made before and after the actual incident is a relevant fact.
THANK
YOU!!!!!!