~ Under the section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, it 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 different time and place.”
This principle underlying section 6, is sometimes termed as ‘res-gestae’.
It is borrowed from english law and incorporated in s6 of iea. The term ‘res’ means thing and the term
‘res gestae’ literally means things done or a transaction or essential circumstances surrounding the
subject.
There is a fact story behind every case before the court of law, containing certain acts, statements and
even omission, which are not in issue but are capable of throwing light on the nature of the transaction,
reveal the true nature or the scene of crime. These acts, statements, omission are allowed to be proved
under this principle.
Halsbury defines res gestae as the same
EXAMPLE:A is accused of murder of B by beating him. Whatever was done or said by A, B or the
bystanders at the time of beating or shortly before or after the beating is a part of the transaction and is
a relevant fact. Relevancy of fact forming the part of the same transaction denotes “res gestae”
CASELAW:
1. R.V. Foster(1941) SC 363, The accused in the instant killing case was charged with man slaughter
for killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the vehicle moving at a high speed, but
did not see the accident. After hearing the cries of the witness, he reached the spot. His
statement was made admissiable under section 6 of IEA.
2. Sawal Das vs state of bihar(1974 SC 778) A Husband, his father and mother was accused of the
murder of his wife. There was evidence that showed that she cried out for help also screamed
out that she was being murdered by the accused persons./ the cries of the children that their
mother was being killed by their father.
For the admissibility of res gastae, following conditions must be fulfilled:
The statement must be a statement of fact and not of opinion
The statement must be made by the participant and not by the witness of the transaction.
However, the statement made by the bystander is admissible if he was present at the scene of offense.
The statement must explain or characterise the incident in the same reasonable manner.
Few Illustrations:
The cry of an injured or wounded persoN
The cry of the witness on seeing the murder happening
The sound of the bullet being shot
The cry for help by the person being attacked
Gestures made by the person dying etc
