S.

6 - Of the Relevancy of Facts- 37

6. Sections 45-51 deal with
witnesses.
relevancy of the opinions of

1 Sections 52-55 deal with

relevancy of character of the
parties in civil proceedings and of the accused in criminal
proceedings.
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.
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.
lustrations
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him.
Whatever was said or done by A or
Bor the bystanders
at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form
part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

(b) 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 iss
relevant, as forming part of the general transaction,
though A may not have been present at all of them.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

TheDoctrine of Res Gestae has been borrowed from English
dW
and
incorporated in Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
 Law of Evidence

38
"things done includine S. Of the
Relevancy of Facts 39
Res Gestae
means
transaction". In all cases rds spoken S. 6
of the s a m e come before In fact, these utterances or remarks made by A, B or bystanders
forming part behind each of such
fact story behi
Law there is a issue, but they are so connected with the fact in issue as
the Court of omissions and cta. are not in
contains several acts,
each fact story
evidence is given of such acts, omissio or statements, ments. Who to form part of the same transaction of beating and become
under Section 6.

ightalthough
proveable
are not in issue, but capable of throwing
are sor
they transaction, revealing its true quali upon Whatever said by the witnesses immediately after the
occurrence or so shortly before or after the occurrence forming part
Such acts, omissions and
statements are regarded as part oeacte
of the same transaction are admissible.' Statements by an injured
transaction in issue and are allowed to be proved. same
those who come immediat to the place, regarding the
person to
Res Gestae may be defined as those circumstances, whis incident are admissible in evidence.?

automatic and undesigned incidents of a icular ich are

which are admissible when illustrative of such acts. act
and litigated In one case before Justice Blackburn, a young lawyer was

struggling to introduce certain irrelevant evidence. Justice Blackburn

Section 6 says that facts even
though they are not in
appears to have suggested to him, "Why don't you try to bring this
evidence under the rule of Res Gestae" This shows that any fact can
if they are so connected as to form part ot the same
e
but
are relevant whether they occur at the same time
transaction the be brought under the garb of Res Gestae making it part of the same
and place or at transaction if the Judge is inclined to admit.
different times and places.
It is difficult to understand what facts do form and what facts
What is a transaction?
a
group of facts so connected
According to Stephen a transaction is do not form part of the same transaction. This is explained in the

legal name, such as a crime, together as to be referred to by a single following illustration:

of
a
contract, wrong or
any other
inquiry, which may be in issue. subject One A who is attending to his work in his room suddenly hears
his servant B shouting from the adjoining room Oh! C is stabbing
This definition has received D. A rushes to the other room and finds D lying in a pool of blood,
of cases. approval from courts in a number and C disappeared from the scene. When C is arrested and
Under
illustration (a) to prosecuted, suppose B, who is the eye-witness, is not available as a
i B by
beating him; whatever Section 6, A is accused of the
murder
witness and A deposes as to what he heard from his servant shouting.
bystanders at the beating; or so was said or done
by A or by B or by In fact, the shouting of B is not in issue but since it accompanied

transaction is shortly
part of the same before or after it as to the transaction of stabbing and explains it, forms part of the same
fighting it isnatural that relevant. When two ron transaction, and becomes proveable under the rule of Res Gestae.
and
they would be they would be charged persons are But the condition for the under rule of Res Gestae is
admissibility
may be
uttering to the other,uttering certain words, for with high emotO13 that such
shouting should have accompaniedthe transaction or must
and other
may be will kill example, one pe have been made while the transaction was in
bystanders you;
uttering, 'Oh! Please do I will not
spare you" progress. In other
Oh! Do notwho appear on the not beat. Also me Words, there should not be an interval between the transactionof
beat, the fellow scene may also make stabbing and shouting: if there is a time gap between the stabbing
would die.' arks certain re ncldent and shouting, it may give an opportunity to the witnesses
Stephen's Dlgest of Law
of
Evldence, Article 3, P. 4.
Khaja Hussain v. Inspector of Police. Coimbatore, 2006 Cr.lJ 397s (Macl).
Rijo v. State of Kerala, 2010 Crl 1315 (Ker) (UD).
 Law of Evidence.

includine
S. S. 6
- Of the Relevancy of Facts - 39

means
"things
done

In all cases that

words spo utterances or remarks made by A, B or bystanders
In fact, these
Gestae
Res
of the
same
transaction". .

ehind each of such

beh
ome betone in issue, but they are so connected with the fact in issue
as
forming part fact story
and statem cases, and
there is a ar
of he same transaction of beating and become
of Law
several acts, omissions
omis form part
the Court contains nents. When
to
u n d e r Section 6.
each fact story such acts, omissi
ssions, or statements proveable
throwing some lightalthough
of the
is given
capable of t the witnesses immediately after
Whatever said by
evidence
are
issue, but or after the o c c u r r e n c e forming part
they are
not in
its true
revealing its quality, and upon or so shortly before

the nature of
transaction,

and statements
are regarded as part aracter
of the
occurrence
of the same
transaction are admissible.' Statements by
an injured

omissions same the place, regarding the

Such acts, to be proved. those who come immediately to
are allowed person to
transaction in issue and a d m i s s i b l e in evidence.2
incident are
defined as those circumstances, whis lawyer was
Res Gestae may be Justice Blackburn,
before a young
one case
incidents of a particular litigated a In
irrelevant evidence. Justice
Blackburn
automatic and undesigned to introduce certain
illustrative of such acts. struggling don't you try to bring this
which are admissible when to have suggested to him, "Why
appears shows that any fact c a n
under the rule of Res Gestae." This
Section 6 says that facts even though they are not in issue but evidence it part of the s a m e
brought under the garb of Res Gestae making
if they are so connected as to form part ot the same transaction the be
is inclined to admit.
are relevant whether they occur at the sanme time and place or at transaction if the Judge
facts
to understand what facts
do form and what
different times and places. It is difficult the
This is explained in
of the s a m e transaction.
do not form part
What is a transaction? According to Stephen a transaction is
following illustration
a group of facts so connected together as to be to by a single referred to his work in his
r o o m suddenly
hears

legal name, such as a crime, a contract, wrong or any other subject One A who is attending Oh! C is stabbing
from the adjoining r o o m
of inquiry, which
may be in issue. his servant B shouting. D lying in a pool of
blood,
rushes to the other r o o m and finds
D. A is arrested and
This definition has received from the s c e n e . When C
of cases
approval from courts in a number and C disappeared is not available as a
B, who is the eye-witness,
prosecuted, suppose
a s to what he
heard from his servant shouting.
Under illustration (a) witness and A deposes
to Section 6, A but since it accompanied
is accused of the murder B is not in issue
of B by In fact, the shouting of forms part of the
beating him; whatever was said or done A or B or Dy and explains it,
same

bystanders at the beating; or so by by the transaction of stabbing

under the rule of Res
Gestae.

part the same transaction

of shortly before or after it as to foru" ransaction, and
becomes proveable
under rule of Res
Gestae is
is relevant. When for the admissibility
ighting it is natural that they would be two persons a But the condition
have accompanied
the transaction or must
and they
would be charged with high emotioi that such shouting should In other
uttering certain words, for
may be uttering to the the transaction was in progress.

other, "I will example, one

prs
n
have been made while
interval between the
transaction of

and other may be uttering, kill you; I will not

spare y words, there should not be an
time gap between
the stabbing
'Oh!
bystanders who appear on the scerne Please do not beat'. Also if there is a
stabbing and shouting; the witnesses
Oh! Do not s give an opportunity
to
beat, the fellow may also
so make certain remar. incident and shouting, it may
would die' Cr.LJ 3975 (Mad).
Coimbatore, 2006
1. of Police.
epher's Digest of Law of Khaja Hussain v. Inspector 1315 (Ker) (DB).
Kerala. 2010 Cr.LJ
Evidence, Article 3, P.4. Rijo v. State of
 Law ofEvidence.
40
fabricate the things. Thus,
us, in
in such
-S.6 S. 6
Of the Relevancy of Facts. 41

to think
over and

form part of
the same transaction must be cases, an
Cse,, aich should allow time for reflection and concocting story." "The
u t t e r a n c e to

and contemporaneous.
spontaneo kement should be an exclamation forced out of a witness by

of Res Gestae the courts I

omotion generated by an event rather than a subsequent narrative".
While applying the principle have
The courts hav therefore laid stress for close association in time,
e been
and cautious. The principle is that the statem. ircumstances
place and circ between making of the statement and the
very rigid
have been made so soon before or after or along with the in should crucial incident.

so that there can

be hardly any time to deliberate and cident
theret Where the statement of PW. 5, that the wife of the deceased
to
fabricate a false story. In number of cases such state
statements, which do
not accompany the incident, have been rejected. has disclosed before him that the accused assaulted, cannot be made
admissible against the accused in evidence under Section 6 of the
In one of the earliest cases Thomson v. Thomson,'Holt, C, held Evidence Act, since the disclosure about the incident was made after
"that what the wife said immediately upon hurt long lapse of time of the incident by the deceased wife.
being received.and
before that she had time to devise or contrive anything for her oOwn What should be the separation of time and place in order to
advantage might be given in evidence." If sufficient time we
allowed to elapse, the invention of false tale, were make a statement admisible, as a part of Res Gestae is a difficult
would be unreliable.
obviously such evidenco ce question. In R. v. Foster,' a prisoner was accused of manslaughter by
killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the vehicle being
Also in the case of R. v. high speed, but however he did not see the accident.
out of her room with a cut on
Bedingfielä,' a woman suddenly came driven at a

her throat and remarked

to her aunt Immediately after hearing the victim shouting he went up to him
"O, dear aunt, see what and asked what was the matter. The deceased then made a statement
Bedingfield has done to me."
admissible under the rule Cockburn,
held this statement to be C, as to the cause of accident. It was held that what the deceased said
must have of Res Gestae
accompanied
by the deceased at the time the
the transaction. He
said," anything utterred
at the instance of the witness as to the cause of accident is clearly
act was admissible. In fact the statement was made after the lapse of at least
admissible. As for instance, if she being done would be many seconds; still the statement was regarded as a part of "running
as "Don't had been heard to
Was over."
Harry", but here it was
something
say something
stated by her after it
over". In view of the difference of opinion expressed by several courts
on this point the Privy Council in Ratten v. R tried to evolve a
This
ruling was even approved scientific formula. Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgment of the
Christie In this case
there by House of Lords in R. v. Board observed: "The test should not be an uncertain one whether
boy. Soon after the incidentwas an incidence of assault the making of the statement was in some sense part of the event or
upon a
certain statements young
mother the boy made
narrating
evidence of the
the offence
and the man to his transaction." This may often be difficult to establish; such external
statement was held to who
assaulted him. ne matters as the time which elapses between the events and speaking
remarked, "I think the be
inadmissible. Lord of the words (or vice versa) and differences in location being relevant
by time and statement made by the Atkinson
and therefore circumstances from the actual boy was so factors, but not, taken by themselves, decisive criteria, as regards
to be that inadmissible
"the words as
part of commission separaeof the crine the statements made after the event it must be for the Judge to satisfy
should be at leastResde Gestae. This
emphasis seen
2.
(1695) Skin 402. recen
ecenti and not after
interval (1941) SC 363 Scotland, per Lord Normand in O' Hara v. Crntral S.M.1: Cu.
3.
(1879) 14 Cox CC 2. Nanuram v. State, 2005 Cr.LJ 4586 (MP)
(1914) AC 545. 341.
3. (1941) SC 363 Scotland, per Lord Normand in O' Hara v. Central S.M.T. Co.

(1834) 6 C&P 325.

 Law of E v i d e n c e -
43
of Facts
2 S.6 Of the Relevancy
was so clearly made in
in cires
circumstances of S. 6 under Section
6
statement admissible
the make statements
himself that event that the possibilitv
of In order
to have

spontaneity
or
involves in the
Converselv. if.he considers that the concoction
statement forming part of the same transaction, the following
conditions

can be disregarded.
ot
narrative of a detached priorevent: thatthe
to be fulfilled;

characterise the
made by way elucidate or
as
trom it as to be
able to construet The statement must explain,
speaker was disengaged
exclude it.
adapt incident in some manner.

his account, he should

or contemporaneou5,
spontaneous
v. Rao accuse
State of A.P,' two The statement must be
event.
In G. Vipavarurihan were narrative of a completed past
tried tor setting a super express bus on fire roasting 23 pascoengers but not a mere
not a
serious burn injuries wl be of fact but
and other passengers sustaining8
statement
must a
statement
to death The
the passengers. Statements of the survivino 3. statement of opinion.
an intention of robbing
ecorded by the Judicial Magistrate were
sought to be proved made either a participant
by
vIctims
statement must have been himself
The who has
s part ot rs gestac. 4.
in the
transaction or
a
by
person

that there was some appreciable

The Supreme Court held
witnessed the transaction.

incendiarism indulged in by the would be

relevant
interval between the acts of made by the bystander
statement
time of the
miscreantsand the Magistrate recording the statements and
judicial The
shown that he
was present at the
from acquiring legitimacy only if it is the same.
the interval therefore blocks the statement of the event and
witnessed

Act. But however the Supreme Court happening

under Section 6 of Evidence murder of o n e
Court on the basis tried for the
upheld the death sentence confirmed by the High
accused was

Chotka v. State,' the Tea and

Chotka c a m e
In
deceased w a s taking
of other evidence. Bhutai stabbing. The
by The body of the
deceased
o n Bhutai.
inflicted stab injuries w a s placed
of Maharashtra
in State v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil there and up and
where it w a s picked
drain from time. The
local trains of Mumbai Suburban fell in a n open there at that
Ansari, relating bomb blast in came

plank. Many people w e n t told by one

Rarlways when the confession made the accused regarding the
by on a
Kutcha
Kiran Bala
there and was

witness one evidence of the

bomb blast in some other case after two years of the bomb blast in prosecution stabbed Bhutai.
The
that Chotka as there
question sought to be admitted as evidence, the Supreme Court held of the bystanders to be
inadmissible

Bala w a s held
Kiran
statement deposed by witness has herself
that the such confession cannot be said to have
contemporaneousiy proof to show
that the prosecution
arisen along with bomb blast and therefore would not be admissible, was no
witnessed the incident.
under the rule of res
gestae. the accused
Sheikh

na In Sheikh Rashid v.
State of Maharashtra.wite Rehana by setting
the conduct of the accused husDal
bride burning case with the
murder of his
PW-1
w a s charged the spot the
in
demanding wcial security in the form of five respectable ra Rashid
inspector
visited
members before her her o n fire. When the police that his
tather has poured
re-entry into matrimonial home an informed him PW-2
deceased wife leaving the f ill s o n Irshad Also when
place of the husband on account deceased's and set her
on tire.
mother the d e c e a s e d
freatment and
cruelty and bringing her back by maternal uncle ror Kerosene o n his crowding the house ot
Khairunbi noticed
several people
part of the same transaction of
burning the deceased.
19%
(e 1j 41Si 1 19,1) Cnmes 197 (SC)
AIR 1958 Cal. 482
(B)
2012 CrlI 1352 (Rom)
Vined
Kumar náerbhui Putel tute uf ujurut, 1999 Cr.LJ 1690, (Cu)
 Law of Evidence.
44
Of the Relevancy of Facts 45
and smoke was he deceased's
billowing and visited the decea. S S. 6]
Irshad informed
Khairunbi that the accused set
house, PWA his evidence of the
witness that she informed about the entire occurrence

pouring kerosene on mother

her. Dealing with the admissibility to the witness
who came to that place to r e s c u e her, would fall within
Res gestae.
of Irshad made to Khairunbi under the rule of res geste the ambit of
High Court held that the statement of Irshad to Khae Bo stateme
within the parameters of Sec. 6 of the
was made by Irshad who witnessed the
Act, as the svidence Khairunbi socommba Evidence of witnesses to whom the deceased informed them,
against the accused
husband as to the torture and harassment meted

part of the same transaction and the

to
statement was
incident
bi, fom KhairunbAateme, out to her,
information
is not attracted by the rule of res gestae, since the
given by the deceased to the witnesses is neither
after the kerosene and
made s
pouring setting the deceased on simultaneous nor contemporaneous.

In the case of Indru v. State Where the accused who took his wife and son on a motorcycle
of H.P, the accused was minor
under Section 376 of IPC for
committing an offence of Tana tie and killed his wife pleading accident, the statement of his
after reaching home that his father
young girl. According to prosecution the accused on a son to his sister immediately
victim of rape with sweets and took her allured Mo i killed his mother, when deposed by other witnesses can be acted
to the
after having forcible sexual nearby
intercourse he left her near fields a upon as forming part
of the same transaction, a s w a s made
The mother noticing her salwar her hous immediately and contemporaneously.
smeared with blood and
coming out of her private parts also blo
enquired the girl as to In Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana, the
happened. The girl narrated to her mother about the wha accused was charged with the murder of his wife and daughter
rape committed on her by the accused. incident o suspecting the wife's character. The father of the accused telephoned
the The question was
deposition of mother about the whethe to the father of the deceased that the accused has killed the deceased.
incident of rape narrated
daughteris admissible. It was held that
the
by her The question was whether the telephonic statement can come under
statement of victim to her
mother is inadmissible since it deposition of th Section 6 of Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that the
part of res gestae must have to be a statement is in the nature of hearsay evidence and such statement
been made
poraneously with the act or substantially contem cannot be treated as an exception to hearsay evidence as it was not
no immediatelyafter it so that there can be
opportunity for reflection or fabrication and the proved to form part of the same transaction or with the incident or
case was statement in ths
only a
narration of soon thereafter, so as to make it
reasonably certain that the speaker
a
past event. is still under stress of excitement in
Where a respect of the transaction in
girl
gone having to a question.
Dy the
accused shop shop for purchases was
narrated about the owner, returned home and rap
TO incidence immediatey
of rape to her
In
a murder and rape case where the accused is alleged to
tne mother
being spontaneous forms mother, her ement
stal ction have assaulted the victim
travelling alone in a moving rain, pushed
and
therefore admissible part of the same
transacu her off the train after
raping her, the evidence of witnesses that though
under the rule of they intended to stop the moving train but were dissuaded by a
ln M.
Loganathan State,v.
res
gestae.
committed the rape of where the accused is
alleged to have
the victim 1. Bhairon Singh of Madhya Pradesh,
by taking her to field v. State 2009 Cr.LJ 3738 (SC): AIR 2009 SC 26033

1989 Cr.L.J
sugarca 2.
(2009) 13 SCC 80.
Apparao Bahadurrao Ghuge State
2239 (HP). v.
of Maharashtra, 2016 Cr LJ (NOC) 368 (Bom).
Sunil Kumur 3. AIR 2000 SC 2138: (2000) 6 SCC 286: 2000 Cr.LJ 3175 : 2000 (2) Crimes 328
3.
2017 Cr Arjun Das Gupta (SC).
1 633 v. State of M.P, 2002
(Mad)(DB). (4) Crimes 261 (MP)
 aged man stating that the victim had i
middle
train and she was alive, the statement of midd ped out f S. 61 Of the
Relevancy of Facts-
witnesses being contemporaneous and
under the rule of Res gestae.'
dle-agedis admisma
spontaneous cart, and throwing it away at or about the place where it was found,
47

the whole of the series of events constituted one single transaction

In Hadu Samanta v. State of Orissa, the accused and the statement made by unidentified person to PW-6 was a
part
the murder of one Bhim Panda. The deceased Bhim of that series of events, and also the statement being
Des ti
im Panda gaves
a
reaction to the request of PVW-6 for removing the cart is admissible.
spontaneous
accused gold and money in view of.a
that he will teach him some Vidya by
promise made by
ne acms
The court did not agree with this argument and held that no doubt
which golden treas spontaneity afords some sort of guarantee for the truth of the
underneath the land can be taken out. The
deceased ha information but a statement is admissible under Section 6 not
sufficiently and nothing having turned
out started presi ing wa because it is spontaneous but because it forms a part of the same
accused for the return of the gold and transaction. Illustration (a) to Section 6 no doubt indicates that the
him. The deceased visited the house of the money, which ho
certain medicine. When the deceased was on
accused and he gane spontaneous statement of a by-stander who sees the commission of
was
his way to hie g a murder is admissible. From this it cannot be deduced that all
he started
belching and vomiting. He felt
that his vil ae spontaneous statements, in some way connected with the transaction
account of some medicine, which was ailment was a w under inquiry, are admissible. In the instant case there was no
the accused's residence. The given to him. He rehim
next indication that the unidentified person who made the statement to
found lying near a morning
deceased was
thedead body ofs PW-6 had actually witnessed the murder or that no substarntial time
village tank. The dead
recognised as that of Bhim Panda by his wife. body between the
had elapsed occurrence and the making of statement.
arrested and The accused w
prosecuted for murder. There was no direct
and the case was
In Manish Dixit State
of Rajasthan,' the accused along with
v.

totally based on eviden others abducted one Gulshan

circumstantial evidence Makhija who was carrying jewellary
The most and then murdered. At the time of abduction the deceased was in
important incriminating circumstance the company of a foreign tourist. The
prosecution relied was the
evidence of
on which
t foreign tourist informed about
the incident to the family members of the deceased who took him
He said that on that
fateful day he had taken prosecution
witness (PW to the
hire and while a cartload
of police station and a FIR was lodged. At the time of trial the
as he was returming
he
passed through
the house
fruits foreign tourist who was an eye-witness to the abduction was not
coming in his cart he found a cart of the accuset
of the accused present as he already left to his country. The prosecution sought to
cart. Since the
on the
road with bullocks standing
at the dor
prove the statement made by the foreign tourist to the family
cart was unyoked
and tied to te
standing nearby blocking
was his way he asked the members of the deceased under Section 6. It was held that the
the cart to shift man wh
the cart a little so that he statement cannot be considered as a part of the transaction.
pass through.That
same

body unidentified person informed PW-6 thata

a In the case of an abduction and murder, where the
was loaded on the cart and des accused
PW-6 out of fear asked PW-6 to take the side-lame persons were alleged to have abducted the father of the witness and
immediately
strongly argued on behalf of left by taking the side lane. E whose dead body was
subsequently recovered, the evidence of the
that the
murder may have the prosecution that on the assun (PW), who stated to have come to learn about the abduction of
son

and the taken place in the his father 4/5

days prior to the recovery of the dead body cannot
body was disposed of and
house of the app lant said to be the
1. by carryi
rrying the dead body on th part of the same transaction.
In Re:
Blog
2. AIR 1951 published by Justice AIR 2001 SC 93 (2001) 1 SCC 596 2001 Cr.LJ 133
Orissa 53. Markhándey Katju in Face bookK. 2. Chaman v. State of Uttarakhand, 2016 Cr LJ 2330 (SC) :
2000 (4) Crimes 171
AIR 2016 SC 1912 2016
(SC).
(2) Crimes 134.
 Lawo EvidenCe -

48

Where a victim ot stabbing speaks to the

the people whi Of the Relevancy of Facts 49
is fresh about the incident and S. 6
stabbing injury the assailants,
is a continuity of f hia Occur either at o n e time and place or at
statement of the victim his number of acts, they may
continuity of the incident
itselt and therefore
comes
conduct,
wi whieh different times
and places. But in order to constitute the s a m e
acts must be connected by proximity of time,
of being a part of res gesta.
transaction, all those
of action and community of purpose or
unity of place, continuity
In Rabindra Nath Moorthy Naidu v. State to Section 6 makes this point very clear.
of West design. Illustration (6)
accused Rabindra Naidu was tried for
Pramanik. Shortly after the stabbing and the one Pares
stabbine Bengal Where the witnesses although did not see
the accused
accused having committing the offence of rape and murder
but their evidence
the victim narrated about the incident and about
the
people collected around him. It was held that whatever sed to th accus escapet showed that immediately after the event, reaching the place of crime,
they s a w the accused fleeing
and caught him after chase in a situation
the victim while the knife was still stuck on
his bact spoken he was found with
blood stained shirt, pant, belt and shoes trying
collected at the scene is a continuity of his to peopl
conduct to wash out them,
these facts c a n be said to form part of the s a m e
continuity of the incident itselt and therefore comes
of being a part of res gestae and admissible as within the s which transaction.
independent evidne. The accused who bore grudge against the deceased, a young
Where the victim of rape married woman because she resisted his sexy designs, was tried for
promptly narrated about
committing rape on her to the witnesses leaving, no the ac uSed committing her murder by shooting with a gun. The accused
concoction or deliberation, the evidence of scope for am
such intruded into the courtyard of the premises of the deceased and
admissible under res gestae.2 witnesses is
pointed his gun at her and shot at her. The deceased shortly before
In Gulzar she was shot at cried that the accused is standing with a gun and
Muhamad v. State of H.P,3
Police Officer commitd a
the,rape of the it followed by the sound of gunshot and pellets piercing into her
prosecutrix along with who
her
to the
police station in connection with a criminalmother were calld body. This statement of the deceased was sought to be proved under
the rule of res gestae.
case. The accused
police officer ásked the mother of the
room and took the to
prosecutrix upstairs and committed the
prosecutrix
remain in a The Supreme Court held that the act of the assailant, her
The prosecutrix rape. pronouncement that the accused was standing with a gun and his
being under the influence of
any alarm while the accused threat did not raise firing the gun at her, are all circumstances so intertwined with each
after the offence came indulged in the offernce. The prosecutm by proximity of time and space that the statement of the victim
out and thereafter other
the incident to her
mother and sister. immediately
narrated abou becomes part of the same transaction and admissible under Section 6
of
rape by the accused to her Disclosure about the incident of the Evidence Act.2
to mother and sister who
police station,
been covered immediately after the occurrence was held accompanie RES GESTAE AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE
by the to na
A
principle
of res
gestae. Hearsay evidence is the statement deposed by a person who
transaction may consist of has not himself witnessed the
Ver to a
number of acts also.
one
single act or it may be 2d
spver to happening of a transaction but has
When a
transaction is only heard of it from others. For example, where a person who has
spread
19CrL
Sstale
2928 (Cal) :1996 (1) Cal.LT
297. Sabirv. State of
of Went
Brugul v.
Sukesh Naskar, 2009 Rajasthan. 20l6 Ct L1 46So (Raj).
Cr.l.J 2370 (Cal) 2. Rattan Singh v. State of H.P.. 1997 Cr.lLI 833, 8I7 (SC) AIR 1997 SC 768
(DD (1997) 4 SCC l6l
.
 can give evidence abos
an accident it.
accident, trom But his vi
witnessed Of the Relevancy of Facts 51
who heard.of the S.7
person
any otherbecause such evidence am nts to him, canne
evidence hearsay
ay evj
7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or etfect of facts
evidence can be permitted
provided it torms
part of the evideng in issue.-
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect,

oi the accident. Here, the sible as originalrans

evidence is admissible as immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or
distinct trom hearsay
evidence since it forms which, constitute the an
state of things under which they happened,
transaction. Thus the Deoctrine ot Res Gestae constitutes
thes or which afforded opportunity for their occurrence or
exeptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is no evider as one ots transaction, are relevant.
nce. Secta
is exception to the general rule where under, hear
an
lustrations
becomes admissible but for the purpose of
say eviden
evidence within the ambit of Sec. 6, what is
s bringing such hean (a) The question is, whether A robbed B.
required to be estah
is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the the ac The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a
acts and
should not be an interval to allow any fabrication. te fair with money in his possession, and that he showed
it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons,
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE TO are relevant.
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B.
The doctrine of res
gestae can be invoked not only in crimi Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or
proceedings but also in civil
proceedings. According to
(c) to Section 6, A sues B for a libel contained illustrali near the place where the murder was committed, are
in a letter
part of correspondence. Letters between the parties
formi relevant facts.
relating to th
subject out of which the libel arose and (c) The question is, whether A poisoned B.
correspondence in which it is contained are relevant forming part of te
not
generally contain the libel itself. This illustration though theyd The state of B's health before the symptoms ascribed
is furtha
explained in an
interesting manner in
to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded
the Law of
Evidence" thus: One C wroteVepa Sarathi's "Elements «t
to B that he
an opportunity for the administration of poison, are
of
making love to A, C's wife, and that he suspected hum relevant facts.
matter with him to wanted to discuss t
avoid a public scandal. B
your circular letter and wrote in reply PRINCIPLE
shall attend the rece
Suit by A, the
wife, shareholders meeting This section is based on induction. The relevancy of facts is
two letters against B for defamation, the libel
t
being
consists of a
read
together. The transaction is theconsistsf0ibel required to be determined by human experience. What has been

whether the secondgroup of facts, the two letters. The facttorE in

the effect of a particular cause and what has been the constant cause
of a particular effect in the past will be the same in future. For
letter is libellous.
with the
second, gives rise to The first letter when n
transaction would be libel, and te example, if a living being is cut on the ground necessarily
there shall
relevant under this therefore as pa bebleeding and the blood can be found at the place of occurrence.
section. Whenever a large quantity of human blood is found at any place by
human experience it can be reasonably inferred that a hunman being
Krishun
2011
Kumur
4274.Mulik v. Slate of has been injured. Thus, the bleeding is the effect of injury is the
Haryana, AlR 2011
AIR 2011 SC 2877: (2011)7 sCC 1
28/