APPLICATION OF RES GESTAE IN INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, ACT, 1872
Submitted by Debanjana Chakraborty Chakraborty B.A. Llb, Sem V Section A 14040141017
1
CONTENTS
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………...3 2. The Concept…………………………………………………………...3 2.1 Meaning of Res Gestae……………………………………………3 2.2 Transaction Defined……………………………………………….5 3. Test for Res Gestae……………………………………………………6 4. Judicial Status of Res Gestae…………………………………………. 4.1 !"pansion of the Doctrine……………………………………….#$ 5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………...#3
1. INTRODUCTION State%ents that constitute part of the res gestae are attri&uted a certain degree of relia&ilit' &ecause the' are conte%poraneous( %a)ing the% ad%issi&le &' *irtue of +the nature and strength, of their connection -ith a particular e*ent an d their a&ilit' to e"plain it co%prehensi*el'. The la- considers the% as sufficientl' relia&le to o*erco%e the e"pansi*e co*erage of the e"clusionar' hearsa' rule( %a)ing ad%issi&le state%ents that -ould other-ise constitute inad%issi&le hearsa'. In understanding the nature of the res gestae e"ception to hearsa' and the %anner in -hich it %ust &e construed in indi*idual cases &' the Judiciar'( it is i%portant to rel' repeatedl' on the underl'ing consideration that is often o*erloo)ed the relia&ilit' of the state%ent. # This paper is an atte%pt to ans-er the /uestions li)e ho- has res gestae &een defined under Co%%on 0a- and to -hat e"tent has it &een utilised as an e"ception to the hearsa' rule( hodoes the Indian !*idence 1ct( #2( define res gestae( if at all and -hat are the rele*ant
1 "The Doctrine Of Res Gestae Law Essays." UKessays.com. 11 2013. A Answers Lt!. 11 201 #htt$%&&www.awteacher.net&free'aw'essays&common'aw&the'!octrine' of'res'(estae'aw'essays.$h$)cref*1+. 2
pro*isions that deal -ith the transaction of an e*ent and ho- are the' used as an e"ception to the hearsa' rule.
2. THE CONCEPT 2.1 MA!"!# $% &S #S'A Res gestae is a 0atin phrase -hich %eans 4things done. Res gestae has no e"act !nglish translation. 1 literal translation %eans so%ething deli&eratel' underta)en or done. In Vino(k)marBa(erbhai *atel +. State o #)jarat 2 Res Gestae has &een defined as Things done( or li&erall' spea)ing( the facts of the transaction e"planator' of an act or sho-ing a %oti*e for acting7 a %atters incidental to a %ain fact and e"planator' of it7 including acts and -ords -hich are so closel' connected -ith a %ain fact as -ill constitute a part of it( and -ithout a )no-ledge of -hich the %ain fact %ight not &e properl' understood( e*en spea)ing for the%sel*es though the instincti*e -ords and acts of participants not the -ords and acts of participants -hen narrating the e*ents( the circu%stances( facts and declaration -hich gro- out of the %ain fact( and conte%poraneous -ith it and ser*e to illustrate its character or these circu%stance -hich are the ato%ic and undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and are ad%issi&le -hen illustrati*e of such act. Res gestae is &ased on the &elief that &ecause certain state%ents are %ade naturall'( spontaneousl' and -ithout deli&eration during the course of an e*ent( the' lea*e little roo% for %isunderstanding 8 %isinterpretation upon hearing &' so%eone else 9i.e. &' the -itness -ho -ill later repeat the state%ent to the court: and thus the courts &elie*e that such state%ents carr' a high degree of credi&ilit'. State%ents -hich can &e ad%itted into e*idence as Res gestae fall into three headings; #.
rinciple of Res Gestae is e%&odied in Section 6 of the Indian !*idence 1ct( #2 -hich reads as follo-s; ?acts -hich( though not in issue( are so connected -ith a fact in issue as to for% part of the sa%e transaction( are rele*ant( -hether the' occurred at the sa%e ti%e and place of at different ti%es and places ?acts -hich %a' &e pro*ed( as part of res gestae( %ust &e facts other than those in issue &ut %ust &e connected -ith it. Though hearsa' e*idence is not ad%issi&le( &ut -hen it is res gestae it can &e ad%issi&le in a court of la- and %a' &e relia&le e*idence. Thus Res gestae includes facts -hich for% part of sa %e transaction. So( it is pertinent to e"a%ine -hat is a transaction( -hen does it start and -hen does it ends. If an' fact fails to lin) itself -ith 2 1,,- /DLA GU 22 3
the %ain transaction( it fails to &e a res gestae and hence inad%issi&le. Res gestae include ele%ents that fall outside the %odern hearsa' definition altogether( such as circu%stantial e*idence of state of %ind( so@called *er&al acts( *er&al parts of acts( and certain n on@*er&al conduct. Aecause e"cited utterances are connected closel' in ti%e to the e*ent and the e"cite%ent flo-s fro% the e*ent( e"cited utterances -ere dee%ed part of the action 9the things done: and hence( ad%issi&le despite the hearsa' rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsa' e"ceptions for present@sense i%pressions( e"cited utterances( direct e*idence of state of %ind( and state%ents %ade to ph'sicians. In Bab)lal +. -.".' Lt(.(3it -as o&ser*ed that the state%ent of la- in section 6 of the e*idence act is usuall' )no-n as Res Gestae. The literal %eaning of the -ord +res, is e*er'thing that %a' for% an o&Bect of rights and includes an o&Bect( su&Bect %atter or status. . The rule as to ad%issi&ilit' of e*idence )no-n as the Res Gestae rule has &een declared to &e incapa&le of an' precise definition and it has &een applied to so %an' different and unrelated situations that it has &een said that the difficult' of for%ulating a description of Res Gestae -hich -ill ser*e all circu%stances see%s insur%ounta&le.*i It -ould &e little short of %iraculous if one single doctrine of Res Gestae -ould suffice for e*er' situation. There %ust &e a %ain or principal fact or transaction7 and onl' such dec larations are ad%issi&le -hichgro- out of the principal transaction and ser*e to illustrate its character( and are conte%porar' -ith( and deri*e so%e degree of credit fro% it. The %ain transaction is not necessaril' confined to a particular point of ti%e( &ut %a' e"tend o*er a long or shorter period( according to the nature and character of the transaction . '&A!SAC'"$! D%"!D 1 transaction( as the ter% used in this sec. is defined &' a single na%e( as a cri%e( a contract( a -rong or an' other su&Bect of en/uir' -hich %a' &e in issue. It include &oth i%%ediate cause and effect of an act or e*ent( and also its collection of rele*ant circu%stances( the other necessar' antecedents of it occurrence( connected -ith it( at a reasona&le distance of the ti%e( pace and cause and effect.E 1 good -or)ing test of deciding -hat transaction is7 i /roimity o time, )nity or /roimity o /lace, contin)ity o action, an( comm)nity o /)r/oe. Aut the %ain test %ust &e continuit' of action and co%%unit' of purpose. The condition for ad%issi&ilit' of a state%ent %ade &' a person -ho -as at the scene of occurrence is the pro"i%it' of ti%e( the pro"i%it' of the police station and the continuit' of action. The e"p ression suggests not necessaril' pro"i%it' of ti%e so %uch as continuit' of action and purpose.5 3 1, /DLA AL 10 4 R 5s Rin( A 1,2, 6 2, Ganesh 5s R7 A 1,31 8 2 4
1 transaction %a' constitute a single incident occup'ing a fe- %o%ents or it %a' &e spread o*er a *ariet' of acts( declaration etc. 1ll these constitute incidents( -hich though not strictl' constituting a fact in issue( acco%pan' and tend to e"plain or /ualif' the fact in issue. 1ll these fact are rele*ant onl' -hen the' are connected &' pro"i%it' of ti%e( unit' or pro"i%it' of place( continuit' of action and co%%unit' of purpose or design.6 !*idence -hich is connected -ith the principal su&Bect %atters of the charges as parts of one an d the sa%e transaction is rele*ant.2 T-o distinct offences %a' &e so insepara&le connected that the proof of one necessaril' in*ol*es pro*ing the other( and in such a case on a prosecution for one( e*idence pro*ing it cannot &e e"cluded &ecause it also pro*es the other. In *eo/le + Lane !*idence as to other offences &' the accused -ould &e rele*ant and ad%issi&le if there is a ne"us &et-een the offence cha rged and the other offences or the t-o acts for% part of the sa%e transaction so as to fall -ithin S.6. 1n entirel' separate and disconnected offence is not ad%issi&le %erel' &ecause it occurred at or a& out the sa%e ti%e as the res gestae of the offence on Trial. ?acts -hich are the occasion( cause or effect( i%%ediate or other-ise( of rele*ant facts( or facts in issue( or -hich constitute the state of things under -hich the' happened( or -hich afforded an opportunit' for their occurrence or transaction( are rele*ant.#$ This section ad%its a *er' large class of facts connected -ith facts in issue or rele*ant facts( though not for%ing part of the transaction. ?acts for%ing part of the sa%e transaction are ad%issi&le under the preceding section. !*idence relating to collateral facts is ad%issi&le -hen such facts -ill( if esta&lished reasona&le presu%ption as to the %atter in dispute and -hen such e*idence is reasona&l' conclusi*e. The section pro*ides for the ad%ission of se*eral classes of facts -hich are connected -ith the transaction under in/uir' in particular %odes( 9#: 1s &eing the occasion or cause of a fact7 9: 1s &eing its effect7 93: 1s gi*ing opportunit' for its occurrence7 and 9E: 1s constituting the state of things under -hich it happened. Amritaa5s R 42 ,9 9 R 5s:a;iram7 1 6 4147 $. 430'31 - 8eo$es 5s ec. 9 of E5i!ence Act
1 fact in issue cannot &e pro*ed &' sho-ing that facts si%ilar to it( &ut n ot part of the sa%e transaction( ha*e occurred at the other ti%es. Thus( -hen the /uestion is( -hether a person h as co%%itted a cri%e( the fact that he had co%%itted a si%ilar cri%e &efore( is irrele*ant. In Anna)yamma +. State o arnataka ## propert' reco*ered for% accused &' the deceased( %urder of the deceased. The court said that unless it could &e conclusi*el' esta&lished that the propert' -as -ith the deceased at the ti%e of the offence( the /uestion of propert' -ould not &e good enough ne"us -ith the %urder.
3. TEST FOR RES GESTAE In 1rticle 3 of his Digest of the 0a- of !*idence( Sir Ja%es Stephen defines a transaction as7 a group of facts so connected together as to &e referred to & ' a single legal na%e( as a cri%e( a contract( a -rong( or another su&Bect of en/uir' -hich %a' &e in issue. Suppose 1 is tried for the %urder of A &' &eating hi% -ith a clu&. Fere the transaction is the cri%e of %urder. That 1 &eat A -ith a clu&( that 1 caused A,s death( that 1 had an intention of causing A,s death are all in issue and for% parts of the sa%e transaction( and e*idence can al-a's &e gi*en of such facts in issue under Section 5. Aut the -ords uttered &' 1 at or a&out the ti%e of &eating( or -ords uttered &' A or &' persons standing &'( at or a&out the ti%e of &eating( are not in issue. Aut the' also for% parts of the sa%e transaction. o one &eats an other silentl'( nor -ould the person &eaten &e silent -hile he -as &eing &eaten( nor -ould persons standing &' -atch silentl'. The transaction includes all these utterances and( though not in issue( for% part of the transaction of %urder( -hich is the su&Bect of en/uir'( and therefore are rele*ant under this section. The *arious tests suggested are as follo-s; a: If the fact in issue and the fact of -hich e*idence is sought to &e gi*en stand in the relation of cause and effect or effect and cause( then the' can &e said to for% part of the sa%e transaction. This test ho-e*er is useless &ecause e*er' e*ent is the effect of innu%era&le effects. If all these causes and effects are to &e treated as rele*ant and e*idence is per%itted to &e gi*en of all these facts( the -hole purpose of restricting the e*idence in a court of la- to rele*ant facts -ould &e lost. The ti%e of the court -ill -asted in listening to e*idence of re%ote causes and distant effects. &: 1nother test suggested is( facts connected &' pro"i%it' of ti%e and place -ould co%e under the section. o dou&t facts happening at a&out the sa%e ti%e and place can &e treated as closel' connected and therefore rele*ant under the section. Aut this is not enough( &ecause the section itself conte%plates the possi&ilit' of facts happening at different ti%es and places( &eing connected -ith the fact in issue( so as to for% part of the sa%e transaction. 11 2002 /DLA KAR ,,
c: 1 third test suggested is that there should &e a continuit' of purpose and action running through the fact in issue and the fact of -hich e*idence is sought to &e gi*en. This( it is su&%itted( is e/uall' useless( as %erel' su&stituting one *ague phrase for another. In the !nglish 0a- s'ste%( -e co%e across a phrase res gestae -hich is e/ui*alent to the facts %entioned in Section 6. Aut( unfortunatel'( that phrase is not al-a's used -ith that %eaning.
9
inter*al( ho-e*er slight it %a' &e( -hich -as sufficient enough for fa&rication then the state%ent is not part of res gestae.#
4. JUDICIAL STATUS OF RES GESTAE The test of ad%issi&ilit' on one hand relies on the e"act conte%poraril' approach laid do-n in Be(in3iel( cae #3 in contrast to the fle"i&le and acco%%odating approach laid do-n in %oter cae 14. It -as precisel' -ith a *ie- to settle this a%&iguit' that the >ri*' Council in &atten cae15 entirel' dispensed -ith the test of conte%poraneit' and adopted the test of spontaneit' and in*ol*e%ent. 0ord
12 htt$%&&www.e(aser5icein!ia.com&artice&1-'Res'Gestae.htm 13 ?1-9,@ 14 o 341 14 ?1-34@ . B 8. 32 1 Ratten5. Re(inam7 1,91 /DLA 8 1 ommonweath 5s 6Cre7 1, /.E.2! -7 -4 C!i$to>arar7 :.R
Thus the principal of ad%issi&ilit' of declarations acco%pan'ing acts can &e su%%aried as7$ #. The declaration 9oral and -ritten: %ust relate to the act -hich is in issue or rele*ant thereto7 the' are not ad%issi&le %erel' &ecause the' acco%pan' an act. Moreo*er the declaration %ust relate to and e"plain the fact the' acco%pan'( and not independent facts pre*ious or su&se/uent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction -hich is continuous. . The declaration %ust &e su&stantiall' conte%poraneous -ith the fact and not %erel' the narrati*e of a past. 3. The declaration and the act %a' &e &' the sa%e person( or the' %a' &e &' different person( e.g. the declarations of the *icti%( assailant and &'standers. In conspirac'( riot the declarations of all concerned in the co%%on o&Bect are ad%issi&le. E. Though ad%issi&le to e"plain or corro&orate( or to understand the significance of the act( declaration are not e*idence of the truth of the %atters stated. 1 spontaneous e"cla%ation is ad%issi&le &ecause under certain e"ternal circu%stances of ph'sical shoc) a state of ner*ous e"cite%ent %a' &e produced -hich stills the reflecti*e faculties and re%o*es their control( so that the utterance -hich occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions alread' produced &' the e"ternal shoc). In $hio + &obert 21The traditionall' cited principle &ehind this e"ception is that an indi*idual -ho %a)es a state%ent i%%ediatel' after a stressful e*ent lac)s sufficient ti%e or capacit' to fa&ricate a lie a&out -hat happened. Thus( this class of state%ents contains sufficient indicia of relia&ilit' so as to &e ad%itted despite its hearsa' character. In a case the accused had )illed his -ife and daughter. The deposition &' the father of the deceased that the father of the accused %ade a telephone call to hi% and said that his son had )illed the deceased -as found to &e not ad%issi&le. The /uestion &efore the court -as that -as that can the deposition of the accused father &e ad%itted under S. 6 as a hearsa' e"ception &eing part of Res Gestae In the a&sence of finding as to -hether the infor%ation gi*en &' accused father to father of the deceased that accused had )illed his -ife and daughter( -as either at the ti%e of the co%%ission of the cri%e or i%%ediatel' thereafter so as to for% part of the sa%e transaction declined to accept the e*idence as rele*ant under section 6. In State o An(hra *ra(eh + #entela Vijaya+ar(han &ao2 the apprecia&le inter*al &et-een the act of carnage and %agistrate,s recording the state%ent recorded &' the %agistrate -as found inad%issi&le under res gestae. 20 >arar $.211 21 44- U.>. 7 9 1,-0F 22 :asa han!rasehar Rao5.8onna>atyanarayana5s8onna>atyanarayana 2000 /DLA > 32 23 1,, /DLA > 231 ,
In Bihna + State o -et Ben3al (E -here the t-o -itnesses reached the place of occurrence i%%ediatel' after the incident had ta)en place and found the dead &od' of >ran)rishna and inBured epal in an unconscious state. Kne of the% found the %other of >rann)rishna and epal -eeping and heard a&out the entire incident fro% an e'e@-itness and the role pla'ed &' each of the appellants( their testi%on' -as held to &e ad %issi&le under section 6 of the !*idence 1ct. In all the cases %entioned a&o*e the test applied to %a)e the e*idence ad%issi&le -as to consider that -as the state%ent -as %ade at the spur of the %o%ent -ithout an opportunit' to concoct and fa&ricate an'thing. 302 at $. 30, $ara 29 2 >ee ommonweath 5s Di
accused as assailant. Kn hearing the sounds the %other and sisters of the child and other -itnesses gathered at the spot. This e*idence -as held to &e ad%issi&le as a part of the sa%e transaction as such shout -as the natural and pro&a&le as per the facts of the case. In this case if child -itness failed to react on the spot &ut spo)e later( it could still &e ad%issi&le under sec 6. The follo-ing cases illustrate the rule in this section 6 ; Ab()ction In a trial for a&duction( a -itness stated that he had seen three -o%en( -ho -ere sleeping in the sa%e &ari as the co%plainant and his -ife( searching so%ething at dus). The -o%en -ere n ot e"a%ined and -hen the -itness -as as)ed -hat repl' one of these ga*e( the Budge rightl' e"cluded the e*idence. The alleged search that e*ening cannot &e treated as part of the sa%e transaction as the a&duction at night7 so S.6 cannot %a)e it ad%issi&le and as the -o%en -ere neither parties to the case nor agents( S. is of no help. S.H is e/uall' inapplica&le. A(o/tion In the %aBorit' of cases e"ecution of a deed of adoption for%s a part of the transaction of adoption itself and is rele*ant under S.6. %elony Generall' spea)ing( it is not co%petent to a prosecution to pro*e a %an guilt' of one felon' &' pro*ing hi% guilt' of another unconnected felon'( &ut -here se*eral felonies are connected together and for% part of one entire transaction( the one is e*idence to sho- the character of the other.
"lle3al #ratiication Receipt of illegal gratification in the 'ears #22 and #2 cannot &e pro*ed in order to esta&lish that he recei*ed the three su%s of %one' %entioned in the charges for -hich he -as tried. The t-o sets of transactions are not so connected a s -ould %a)e the% rele*ant to one another. S.6 cannot appl'( &ecause the pa'%ents of #22 and #2 are not so connected -ith the facts in issue in this case as to for% part of the sa%e transaction. M)r(er an( Dacoity In the a&sence of an' e"planation( the presu%ption arises that an' one -ho too) part in a ro&&er' also too) part in the %urder -hich constituted part of the sa%e transaction. It has &een held that recent and une"plained possession of the stolen propert' -hile it -ould &e presu%pti*e e*idence against a prisoner on the charge of ro&&er' -ould si%ilarl' &e e*idence against hi% on the charge of %urder -here %urder and ro&&er' for% parts of one transaction. &a/e
11
In rape( indecent assault and cries or co%plaint to an' one %ade during or i%%ediatel' after occurrence( is ad%issi&le as part of the transaction. Such e*idence is also ad%issi&le as conduct. The state%ent is ad%issi&le not as e*idence of the truth of the charge( &ut as e*idence of the credi&ilit' of the co%plainant. C( it is ad%issi&le as res gestae. :nla<)l aembly State%ents %ade &' %e%&ers of unla-ful asse%&l' of their deter%ination to force their -a' through a police cordon are e*idence of res gestae.
5. CONCLUSION
Lsuall' e*idence is &rought under res gestae -hen it cannot &e &rought under an' other section of Indian e*idence act. The intention of la- %a)ers -as to a*oid inBustice( -here cases are dis%issed due to lac) of e*idence. If an' state%ent is not ad%issi&le under sec. 6 it can &e ad%issi&le under Sec.#52 as corro&orati*e e*idence. Court has al-a's %inded that this doctrine should ne*er &e e"panded to an unli%ited e"tends. That is -h' Indian courts ha*e al-a's considered the test of continuit' of the transaction. 1n' state%ent -hich -as %ade after a long ti%e gap and -hich -as not a reaction to the e*ent is not ad%issi&le under sec.6 of the !*idence act. Aut courts ha*e per%itted certain state%ent -hich -as spo)en after a long ti%e gap fro% the occurrence of the transaction( &ecause there -as
12
sufficient proof that the *icti% -as still under the stress of e"cite%ent and so -hate*er -as said -as as a reaction to the e*ent. The strength of Sec. 6 lies in its *agueness. The -ord transaction used in this section is not distinct. It *aries fro% case to case. !ach case in cri%inal la- should &e Budged according to its o-n %erit.
13
