This Blog is written by Namra Chauhan, a Third-Year Law Student of Punjabi University, Patiala

In this blog, we will discuss the Doctrine of Res Gestae. The doctrine of res gestae was used in the Evidence Law. The Doctrine of Res Gestae was the provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section-6) but this Act was repealed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section-4). The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was enacted on 25th of December 2023 and came into force on 1st July 2024.

Introduction:

The term RES GESTAE was originally used by the Romans and it means ‘Acts Done’ or ‘Actus’. Rendered in English, res gestae means ‘things done’ or ‘things said’. In the legal field, it connotes the facts and contentions, associated with any theory or occurrence within the context of the litigation, its antecedents, and events or in the same transaction. Circumstantial or indirect facts are also considered under the doctrine of res gestae, as they also form part of the same transaction.

It is also extended to:

· The principle of admissibility of evidence that permits hearsay.

· The evidence rule excludes other crimes in proof of conviction.

What is RES GESTAE?

Events or Circumstances that are pertinent to the case as well as other events that are associated or co-existing.

What it can refer to?

An evidence rule permits certain out-of-court statements (admissions or confessions) or dying declarations or an evidence rule permits turning hearsay into evidence in another sense.

What is its Application?

Res gestae was a general exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay in common law, however, this has been superseded by many rules of evidence which replaced it with their own specific rule.

Essentials of the Doctrine of RES GESTAE:

· The statement made should not be an opinion and must be a fact.

· The statement should be made by the participants of the same transaction.

· The statement should include enough information to explain or give a brief about the incident.

· The statement made by the person or act of the person should be spontaneous and simultaneous to the main transaction.

Illustrations:

· If a person is dying of poison and before dying, he tells the name of the accused.

· If a person is about to die the accused is in front of him holding a gun and he asks for help.

· If an injured person is crying for help.

Case Laws:

· Ratten v. Queen (1971)

In this landmark case, the victim (wile) called the police for help as her husband was about to kill her and was holding a gun in front of her. Before the operator could get connected to the call and report the statements of the victim, the call got disconnected. Later on, the police found the dead body of the wife in the house; this was inquired that the time of the death and the call to the police were at the same time. Thus it was concluded by the court that this statement made to the operator comes under the principle of res gestae and the husband was convicted in this case.

· Sukhar v. State of UP (AIR I9995 SC)

In this case, the victim tried to raise an alarm that the accused would shoot him in a few minutes. On hearing the alarm, the witness almost reached the place of the incident. The victim survived and the accused was charged under Section 307 of IPC (Punishment for an attempt to murder). Despite the circumstances in this case being hearsay evidence, the court recognized the act in the same part of the transaction and explained it to be a case of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, now Section 4 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Therefore, the statements of the witnesses were admissible as they formed a part of the same transaction.

· Uttam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The child and the victim were sleeping together at the time of the incident and he suddenly awakened due to the voice of the axe and streamed for help by taking the name of the accused. Just after the call for help, his mother, sister and other witnesses came over there. The court found this evidence to be admissible as the act of the child and the accused formed the same part of the single transaction.

Criticism of Res Gestae doctrine –

The doctrine is also applicable to hearsay evidence which is considered to be a weak piece of evidence. The scope of section 6 (IEA) & section 4(BSA) under res gestae lies in its vagueness. The word Transaction used in this section is to be interpreted from various angles. It changes from case to case.

Relevancy in the Evidence Law:

SECTION 4 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

Relevancy of facts forming the part of the same transaction-

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction are relevant whether they occurred at the same place or at different times and places.

Conclusion:

To sum up, the res gestae doctrine has its advantages in understanding a particular transaction or an event in that it seeks to allow for the inclusion of spontaneous and contemporaneous evidence. Nevertheless, its application might have limited unfavorable consequences. Several concerns should be addressed with care such as imprecision, bias, hearsay problems, risk of unfairness, and over-dependence on spontaneity. Courts will have to strike a balance in adopting measures that read the prevailing considerations in convening for each case.

Reference:

1. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-res-gestae/

3. https://thelawgist.org/res-gestae-under-section-4-of-bsa/#:~:text=Section%204%20of%20Bharatiya%20Sakshya,meaning%20is%20'Same%20Transaction'.

4. https://www.leadindia.law/blog/en/what-is-section-4-of-bsa/

5. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/the-doctrine-of-res-gestae-15863.asp