Res Gestae under Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872

“Walking on the edges of the footpath, you hear a screeching voice of a woman, turn to the left
and exclaim in shock “oh my god, someone help” when you witness her being robbed off by a
gang of four men. Will your statement be admissible in the eyes of law?”
Facts, not a part of the main issue, which are supplementary and is so connected to the issue that
it forms part of the same transaction is called res gestae. These facts ought to be
contemporaneous in nature so as to be admissible by the court under Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In layman’s terms, the facts which surround the fact in issue and have happened
immediately before or after the ‘act’ has been done are admissible under this doctrine. If any of
the facts are remotely connected to the main act, they wouldn’t be admissible in a court of law.
Definition of res gestae
Res Gestae has been derived from Latin words meaning ‘’things done’’. It is mainly an exception
to the hearsay rule of evidence which refers to ‘’an assertion other than one made by a person
while giving oral evidence is inadmissible’’.
As per the stated words of the Indian Evidence Act, under section 6, 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. This comes
under the ambit of res gestae.
Evolution of doctrine of res gestae
The doctrine of Res gestae doesn’t have a precise definition. It has been interpreted and applied
in diverse ways and it has been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of Res Gestae,
which will serve all circumstances seem unsurmountable.[1] It was the Romans who put light on
the concept of res gestae which meant acts that are done.[2] In the case of Thompson v
Trevanion, Lord Holton may have used this exception before the phrase ’res gesture’ has come
to light.[3]It was in the middle of the 1800s that this exception has been firmly established.
In Babulal v W.I.T Ltd[4], it was discerned that the statement of law in section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act is usually known as Res Gestae. There is a diverse range of opinions when it
comes to the understanding of res gestae, where, for some, it is seen as an advantage to
complicated cases, while for others, this exception is denigrating and vague.
Lord Normand, in the case of Teper v R., described that res gestae could be admissible on two
propositions, that the human declaration is both a fact as well a means of communication and the
 act should be so closely in sync with words in such manner that the significance of the action
couldn’t be understood without the correlative words.[5]
In the case of Ratten v R.[6], the privy council took the exception of hearsay, where a telephone
communication on the telephone took place 5 minutes before the woman was shot at the
accused’s home, where she hysterically yelped “Get me the police, please”. The privy council
held the evidence admissible, as it was part of the same transaction.
Dean Wigmore commented “The phrase res gestae is, in the present state of the law, not only
entirely useless but even positively harmful. it ought therefore wholly to be repudiated, as a
vicious element in our legal phraseology. It should never be mentioned.[7]
Nature and scope of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872
As mentioned in Section 6, the facts must form a part of the same transaction, but what is meant
by transaction in legal terms?
Transaction: it is defined as a crime, contract, error or any other subject of enquiry that may be
in question by a single name, which includes both the immediate cause and effect of an act or
event and also its collection of relevant circumstances, the other necessary antecedents of its
occurrence, connected with it, at a reasonable distance of the time, pace and cause and effect. To
resolve what forms a transaction, the following points need to be taken into consideration:
• Unity or proximity of the place
• Proximity of time
• Continuity of actions
• Community of purpose
Mainly it is the test of continuity of actions and community of purpose that make it admissible in
nature. If the human declaration is spontaneous but detached from the concerned issue, it
wouldn’t be admissible.
The transaction can confine a singular act or a series of acts, which may be done at a different
place, or at a different time, but it must be concurrent with the act. In the above-mentioned case
of Ratten v R, the victim dialled on the telephone 5 minutes prior to the shooting, however, that
act was related to the act of shooting that followed after 5 minutes. Her mental and physical
expressions showed the continuity of actions and declared the fear that she had against the
accused for murdering her. All of these constitute instances, which supplement, explain or
qualify the fact and issues raised in the court of law. However, these facts would only be
relevant if they can be in sync with the proximity of time, continuity of actions and community
of purpose.
Contemporaneous act: In the case of Kailash Chandrakar and another Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh[8], the rationale was to form a particular declaration as a part of the same transaction or
of the same incident or just contemporary to the incident so as to make reasonably certain that
the speaker is still under the stress of excitement in respect of the transaction are facts to be
considered.
Such acts and statements can come under the doctrine of res gestae that are contemporaneous in
nature, meaning, must be simultaneous or spontaneously done, during or immediately, before or
after the act, but not after the act is over. Here the value of time is of significance. Res Gestae
supports not only actual facts of the transaction and circumstantial evidence surrounding it but
also the matters immediately preceding to and having a direct causal connection with it, as well
as acts immediately following it and so closely connected with it as to form in reality a part of
the occurrence, as explained by J.McKnight, State v. Fouquette.
Even the statements declared by a person to a third party soon after the incident, with not much
difference in time are similar to contemporaneous utterances and are admissible as evidence
under this principle through the deposition of the one who heard the utterance.[9]
It was also held that requirement of section 6 is that the statement or act must have been
contemporaneous with the act or immediately after it and not at such space of time so as to make
it a narrative of past events or to allow time for fabrication.[10]
Relevance of evidence:
Any evidence, which is relating to the main issue raised, is deemed to be relevant unless proven
otherwise. Distinct offences may be linked so much that one offence is proof that the other
offence followed right after it.
Other conjoining offences by the accused would be pertinent and admissible if there is a relation
between the offence charged and the other offences or whether the two acts form part of the
same transaction to fall within Section 6. If the offences are so distinct, that they can barely form
part of the same transaction, wouldn’t be relevant evidence and would be inadmissible.
Relevance of facts:
Facts, preceding or succeeding the fact in issue, which constitute the state of circumstances under
which they have occurred, or which provided an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction,
 are relevant. Facts, forming part of the same transaction will be admissible under the previous
section.
Evidence to corroborate where such facts have occurred, where reasonable presumption to the
disputed matter has been established and where such evidence is reasonably conclusive can be
admissible.
Showing similar facts, which aren’t even forming part of the same transaction, can’t be a
relevant fact. When some facts are alleged, they need to be proven with enough nexus with the
offence to held admissible.
This section provides categories of facts which are connected with the transaction under inquiry
in particular modes, which are as follows:
1. As being the occasion or cause of a fact;
2. As being its effect;
3. As giving an opportunity for its occurrence; and
4. As constituting the state of things under which it happened
Test for admissibility of evidence under res gestae
There are a few questions that the judge of the respective of court needs to take heed of, for
making such evidence admissible under the res gestae doctrine. They also need to comprehend
certain circumstances, whether they were so sudden, surprising or startling to affect the
immediate thoughts and actions of the victim, that his/her declaration was an instinctive response
to that circumstances.
For the supplementary evidence to be contemporaneous, it has to be adduced that the
consciousness of the declaring party has been immediately dominated by the event. Therefore, it
has to be closely associated with the main event.
Put it in brief, the test to be applied in deciding whether a hearsay statement made by a third
party or the victim indicating the identity of the attacker is admissible can be framed on the basis
of these aspects:[11]
1. Relevancy of identification
2. The spontaneity of the declaration
3. Possible opportunity for the concoction
4. The real possibility of error
5.
 Landmark judgements relating to the doctrine of res gestae under Section 6, the Indian
Evidence Act,1872
The following judgements help to filter out the res gestae from such facts that actually have
concurrence with the main issue and determine whether these statements have occurred in the
spur of the moment or fabricated or narrated in a later period, to be admissible or not
1. Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayan and Ors[12]
In this case, the offender had killed his wife and daughter. The deposition was made by the father
of the accused that who made a phone call to the accused and said over the call that his son had
killed the deceased. The contention raised before the court was, whether this statement of the
accused’s father can be recognised under the doctrine of res gestae. Unable to determine the time
of the phone call, where this same information was relayed, and whether it was done
simultaneously with the commission of the crime or immediately after, this evidence was held
inadmissible under the said principle.
• Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[13]
Here, the considerable interval between the act of carnage and the recording by the magistrate of
the statement, made the evidence inadmissible.
• Bishna and Ors vs. State of West Bengal[14]
In this case, two witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence right after the incident has taken
place and found the body of the deceased named Prankrishna and injured Nepal in an
unconscious state. One of the witnesses heard the mother of Prankrishna and Nepal sobbing and
heard the entire scenario from an eyewitness and the role played by each of the appellants.
However, their testimony was inadmissible as it was recognised under the doctrine of hearsay
evidence.
Expansion of the doctrine of res gestae
Courts have gradually increased the ambit of the section, extending to cases like domestic
violence, child witness, etc.
Often, cases of domestic violence, and sexual and physical assault involve some form of startling
event, also including the issue of excited utterances, wherein most victims can only identify the
alleged offender. So many testimonies ought to be admitted.
In cases of rape or sexual offences, women are generally under trauma for having been
victimised in a gruesome way, so they might take a day or two to get over the trauma and
respond. these responses must be taken into the ambit of res gestae as well. If proven that the
victim was in a state of shock, then such a statement can be admitted. It is difficult to find
eyewitnesses for rape as these cases happen in isolation.
An excited utterance is generally observed in the testimonies given by children. In the case of
children, the spontaneity of the declaration is given relief. the rationale behind this is that
children take time to cope with stress and their statements are made well after events occur at the
first safe opportunity to speak.
In the case of Uttam Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the child of the deceased witnessed the
death of his father, when the offender hit the deceased with an axe by his neck and yelled in fear
calling his mother for help. Even though the child couldn’t give the statement on the spot, later
his statement was held admissible under section 6.
Exception to hearsay
A killed B, where C was the sole eye witness. C shared this news with D. If D testified whatever
C saw in the court, it would be held inadmissible because he wasn’t part of the event nor did
form part of the same transaction. He just heard it from C and said it. This is called hearsay
evidence and is held inadmissible.
It’s admissible when a person testifies about what he or she has seen or heard if it’s relevant to
the issue. However, it’s not admissible if the truth of the statement needs to be weighed down.
Hearsay isn’t the best evidence because of the following reasons i.e., the witness isn’t available
for cross-examination; he isn’t put on oath or affirmation; it carries an inherent danger of
unreliability through repetition of facts stated in the chain of communication and possibility of
fabrication.[15]
Res gestae is an exception to this doctrine because it includes the element of contemporaneity
and forms part of the same transaction.
Conclusion
It is now evident that the involvement of the speaker in the pressure of the drama or the
concatenation of events leading up to the crisis needs to be established. As long as the statement
isn’t made by the mere narration of a detached prior event to show the disengagement of the
speaker from the main issue, it can be made admissible.[16]
The statements, either oral or written, must be made with concurrence to the main issue and not
merely accompany the act. They must be descriptive about the immediacy of the statements
relating to the occurrence of such incidents. Besides, they can’t be independent facts or
subsequent facts after the act is over.
The declaration may be made by the same person, party to the offence, or any third party. Due to
the vague nature of the doctrine, the courts have taken up the “test of continuity of transaction”.
Even if certain statements haven’t been uttered spontaneously, and had a gap of time from the
occurrence of the incident, they can be rendered admissible if it’s proved that the speaker was in
a state of shock or excitement during the incident.

[1] 31 A CJS 978.

[2] Diva Rai, Doctrine of Res Gestae, IPLEADERS, (29 May,2019)
https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-res-gestae/.
[3] Khan, Aamir, Doctrine of Res Gestae, Concept and Scope (April 17, 2015). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595574 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595574.
[4] 1956 INDLAW CAL 105.
[5] (1952) A.C. 480, 496.
[6] MANU/AUSH/0028/1974.
[7] Jibin Mathew George, Doctrine of Res-Gestae, ACADEMIKE, (16 December, 2014)
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-res-gestae/.
[8] 2014 (135) AIC 553, CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT.
[9] Gurdev Singh, Balwinder Kumar, Angrej Singh, Bachittar Singh Versus UOI & Ors. 2014(2)
SLR 675.
[10] Chhotka v. State, AIR 1958 Calcutta 482.
[11] Shrivastav N, Doctrine of Res Gestae, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2501/Doctrine-of-Res-Gestae.html.
[12] MANU/SC/0394/2000.
[13] MANU/SC/0719/1996.
[14] MANU/SC/1913/2005.
[15] Hanishi K Thanawalla, Development and liberalisation of Hearsay Doctrine, 38 JILI (1996)
229.
[16] Jean Campbell, Res Gestae and Hearsay Evidence,35, TMLR, pp.540-543, 543 (1972).