Assignment

of
Law of Evidence

On

The Doctrine of Res Gestae

Submitted To; Submitted By;

Mr. Gyanendra Tripathi Yash Kedia

Assistant Professor Student ID – 18FLICDDN02179
ICFAI Law School BA- LLB (H.) III Year,
The ICFAI University, Dehradun Section- “C”
Doctrine of Res Gestae: -
This doctrine means,“Things said and done in the course of a transaction”.
Section 5 of Chapter II of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that in any suit or
proceeding evidence may be given of every fact in issue and relevant fact and section
6 to 55 declare as to which facts are relevant facts.

Among them section 6 declares that facts forming part of the same transaction are
relevant.
It provides:
The facts, which though not in issue, are so connected with the fact in issue so as to
form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether occurred at the same time and
place or at different times and places.

The principle on which this section is based is the English Law doctrine of Res Gestae,
though the section does not expressly make a mention of the term res gestae.

The phrase res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means things done and its
English equivalent is things said and done in the course of a transaction and the
doctrine of res gestae says that when in any suit or proceeding a transaction is the fact
in issue then in such suit or proceeding evidence may be given of every fact which
forms a part of that transaction.

Same Transaction: -
As mentioned above for a fact to become relevant under section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 it is necessary that such fact is so connected with the fact in issue
so as to form part of the same transaction.
The term transaction has not been defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In its etymological meaning the term refers to an affair or a carrying through, but for
the purpose of the doctrine a specific definition of the term has been given by
[Link] in his book Stephens Digest of Evidence which says that, A group of
facts together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract, a wrong or
any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.
Accordingly, the test to determine whether certain facts form part of the same
transaction or not is whether they are so related to each other in terms of purpose or as
cause and effect or as to constitute one continuous action1

Illustrations: -
i. A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A
or B or by the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it, so as to
form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
ii. 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.

This Doctrine was explained in the case of Ratten v. Queen2, in this case, a man was
charged with the murder of his wife. He defended himself in the court saying that the
shot went off accidentally. However, there was evidence to show that the deceased
wife contacted the telephone operator and said, Get me the police please. But before
the operator could connect call to the police the lady who spoke in distress gave her
address and then the call ended suddenly. Thereafter the police went to the address so
given and found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused.

Decision: -
Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgement fort his case, explained that:
The act of the deceased of calling the telephone operator and the words said by her on
the call are relevant facts here as they form part of the same transaction which is in
issue before the court and on the basis of these facts the accused was convicted for
murder as no victim of an accident can even think of calling the police and ask for
help before the happening. Her call in distress clearly showed that the shooting in
question was intentional rather than being accidental.

1
Batuk Lal (2015), The Law of Evidence, Allahabad, Central Law Agency.
2
(1971) 1 WLR 801.
The Time and Space: -
Section 6 makes an express mention that it is not necessary that the facts have
occurred at the same time and place in order that they form part of the transaction in
issue. This is so because no limitation can be imposed as to the length of time over
which a transaction should extend. A transaction may get completed in a moment or
may extend to days, months or even years. Similarly, no restriction can be applied as
to the territory within which the transaction must take place, those like a sudden
quarrel or shooting or stabbing may occur even in a room while those like a rebellion
may cover an entire country.

For example: -
I. Where a conspiracy is entered into by certain people to overthrow the
government by force and for this purpose funds are collected at a place B, task
force is trained at a place C and the arms are collected at a place D. All these acts
are part of the same transaction though not occurring at the same places and time.
II. 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 the
goals are broken open. All these occurrences form part of the same transaction
though A may not be present at all of them.

As mentioned earlier in the case of Ratten v. Queen, the act of the deceased wife of
calling the telephone operator and asking to connect her to the police, was res gestae.

An illustration attached to section 6 also illustrates the point that,

 Where the question is, whether certain goods were delivered in the performance
of a contract, the fact that they were delivered to several intermediaries in the
process of ultimate delivery to the buyer, is relevant, each successive delivery
being a part of the transaction.

In the case of Sabir v. State of Rajasthan3, The witnesses reached the place of
occurrence of crime and saw the accused fleeing away from there and thus chased him
and eventually caught him in a situation where he was found with a blood-stained

3
2016 Cr LJ 4686.
shirt, pent and shoes and was trying to wash them in the pond nearby. These facts are
relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they form part of the
same transaction.

Omissions as Res Gestae: -

It is not only an act that can be the part of a transaction but omissions too can be the
same. The case of Milne v. Leisler4 is an illustration on the point, Here in this case,
The question was whether a contract was made by the defendant in his personal
capacity or as an agent for the plaintiff. The facts of the case were that the defendant
had been the agent of plaintiff for quite a long time. And thus, the confidence reposed
by the plaintiff in defendant was so high that defendant would enter into contracts on
his behalf without even consulting him, if he found them to be beneficial. The
plaintiff never objected to this conduct of the defendant. But since the contract in
question proved to be disadvantageous to him, the plaintiff denied to consider it
maintaining that it was entered into by the defendant without his permission and thus
in a personal capacity.

Decision: -
Here, the omission of the plaintiff to raise an objection against the conduct of the
defendant on several previous instances was held to be res gestae and and on this
basis the Court found the plaintiff to be bound by the contract in question as the
defendant had an implied authority to enter into contracts on his behalf even without
consulting him, in case he found them to be advantageous.

Statements as Res Gestae: -

The statements which accompany physical happenings are also considered as a part of
the transaction.
For example, an injured person crying under pain for help.
Under this point, the case of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar5 is a leading case where,
A husband, his father and mother were prosecute for the murder of his wife. There
were evidence to show that she cried out for help and also screamed out that she was

4
Avtar Singh, (2016).Principles of the Law of Evidence, Allahabad, Central Law Publications.
5
AIR 1974 SC 778: 1974 SC 779: 1974 Cr LJ 664:
being killed by the accused persons. Also, the children who were playing outside
exclaimed that their mother was being killed.

Decision: -
These statement of the deceased as well as of the children were held to be relevant as
res gestae. Another important point highlighted by the decision of this case is that
apart from the statements of the victim, the statements of bystanders who saw the
happening are also relevant and the statements of the person doing the act are relevant
as well.
For example, if A assaults B on the neck with a knife and this is seen by C who
exclaims, B is killing A, is relevant as res gestae. It is as much a part of the
transaction of murder as the gushing out of blood from the wound, the only difference
being that the latter is a physical reaction to the act while the former is a
psychological reaction by perception.

Another important case on the point is of Thompson v. Trevanian6 Where, the

deceased woman came running out of the house with a wound on her neck from
which she was bleeding and cried out that her husband had caused the injury. This
statement of the wife was held to be relevant as res gestae.

However, in the case of R v. Beddingfield7, a case with similar facts presents a

different point of view, a woman with a cut throat came running out of a house. She
was crying continuously but did not say a word about how the injury was caused.
However, as soon as her aunt came she told her, O Aunt, see what Beddingfield has
done to me.

Decision: -
Cockburn C.J., delivering the judgement explained:
Such statements in order that they may be admissible as res gestae should be
contemporaneous with the transaction in issue, so as to give no time/opportunity for
concoction or fabrication. The statements should not amount to a mere of a past
occurrence.

6
(1695) Skin 402.
7
(1879) 14 Cox C.C. 341.
Thus, simply the statements should be forced out of emotions generated by the even
rather than be a narrative of a past event, they should be made in circumstances of
spontaneity or involvement in the event.

The Indian case of Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh8 presents a different
example in this regard, Here, shortly before the incident in which a woman died of a
gunshot, she exclaimed that a man was standing near her with a gun in his hand. The
statement was held to be res gestae and thus, relevant.

Hearsay as Res Gestae: -

The Doctrine of res gestae is one of the exceptions to the principle of hearsay.
Hearsay evidence refers to the statement by a person who has not himself seen the
happening of the transaction, but has heard about it from others.
For example, a person who has himself witnessed an accident can give evidence of it
to the court. But his wife who heard about the accident from him, cannot give
evidence of it to the court, her knowledge being indirect or hearsay.
But under the doctrine of Res Gestae hearsay is also admissible.

In the case of R v. Foster9 the deceased was killed in an accident by a speeding truck.
The witness had only seen the speeding vehicle towards the deceased and not the
actual accident, his view being blocked by another vehicle coming from the opposite
direction. Immediately after the accident the witness went to the deceased and he
explained to him the nature of the accident. The witness was allowed to give evidence
of what the deceased said, it being a part of the transaction.

In another case of Badruddin v. State of Maharashtra10 the accused dragged the

deceased from his house to Chowk area and began to beat him. Z who was present
when the beating began ran to the village police Patel, while the beating was in
progress and told him that the deceased was being beaten by the accused. The police

8
AIR 1997 SC 768: (1997) 4 SCC 161.
9
(1834) 6 C & C p.325: 172 ER 1261
10
AIR 1981 SC 1223: 1981 Cr LJ 729
Patel was allowed to give evidence of what Z told him, it being a part of the
transaction.

Conclusion: -
To conclude it may be stated that the affairs of men are not simple but involve a
complex aggregate of circumstances which are so interconnected as to be hardly
separable from each other and thus, as explained by Peter Murphy in his book A
Practical Approach to Evidence, to state a fact or event in isolation without a
reference to its precedents, antecedents or contemporaries in time, place, or
surrounding circumstances, may render the fact difficult or even impossible to
comprehend11.

Other facts or circumstances may be so related with the fact in issue as to be in reality
the part and parcel of the same transaction. Such facts are considered as relevant
under the Indian Evidence Act ,1872 by virtue of the doctrine of res gestae and hence,
evidence as to them may be given in any suit or proceeding.

11
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (2017),The Law of Evidence, Haryana. Lexis Nexis