Theory of Res – Gestae –
Theory of Res – Gestae – Section 6, Chapter 2 of Indian Evidence act is relevant to the theory of Res – Gestae.
Section -6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. ( Res – Gestae)––
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.
Illustrations
- A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers (the persons who are present at the time of the occurrence) at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
What is said by A or B or public should be spontaneous with incident.
In case of series or trasactions of crime ——-Chains of links are formulated and it was checked whether these chain of links formulating proximate event i.e., crime
- A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
- A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
- The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
This section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the technical expression res gestae. (i.e. the thing 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 must 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 maybe in issue.
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 if it were not part of the same transaction it might be excluded as hearsay.
Whether other Sections of IEA also applies to section 6?
Yes
Section -7 ( Cause , Occasion and Effect),8 ( Motive) ,9 ( Parade Identity), and 14 ( Intention, Knoledge- Mens rea) should be read.
Case Laws-
Genthla Vijay Vardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2791
The essence of doctrine of ( Res – Gestae) is that Fact which though not in issue as to form a part of same transaction become relevant by it self.
Case –Law Sawaldas vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778
Facts forming part of same transaction
A husband, his father and mother were prosecuted for the murder of his wife. She cried out for help as soon as she was pushed into the room. Her children, who were playing outside in the verandah exclaimed at the same time that their mother was being killed. The exclamation of children were received through the evidence of persons who heard them.
The rule is essentially an exemption to the usual rule that hearsay (sunisunai baat) evidence cannot be admitted because section 60 requires direct evidence to be allowed.
Bhairon Singh vs. State of MP, AIR 2009 SC 2603
Facts not so connected as to form part of same Transaction
The prosecution of the husband was for torture of his wife for non- fulfillment of his demand. The witnesses testified to what the deceased told them about torture and harassment. The court said such deposition had no connection with any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Their evidence was also not admissible under Section 32.
According to Section 6 of the Evidence Act, such statements are admissible because of their unplanned and immediate nature in relation to the fact in issue, but it is necessary that these facts or statements have been made at the same time as the acts that constitute the offence.