Latest Articles
Back
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE
Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explains the doctrine of res gestae under heading 'relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction'. The principle of the section is that whenever a ‘transaction’ is a fact in issue, then evidence can be given of every fact which forms part of same transaction. The facts which surround the happening of an event are its ‘res gestae’. This doctrine has been taken up by English Law though this word has been scrupulously avoided by the section. The rule of Res Gestae marked its first appearance in year 1693 in Thompson v. Trevanion, where Court held that declarations accompanying an act are receivable in explanation thereof.
The phrase is Latin which literally means ‘things done’ and when translated in English means “things said or done in the course of transaction’. Every case before the Court of law has a fact story behind it. Other facts or circumstances may be so closely connected with the fact in issue as to be part and parcel of the same transaction. Such ancillary facts are described as forming the part of the res gestae of the fact in issue. The principle of res gestae operates as an exception to hearsay evidence. Under Evidence law, hearsay evidence is not admissible, but on application of res gestae such statements become admissible if they extraordinarily relate to fact in issue or form part of the same transaction.The doctrine enables the court to take into account all the essential details of a transaction. A transaction has been defined as group of facts so connected together as to be referred by a single name, as a crime or contract or any wrong which may be in issue. The doctrine of Res Gestae is based on the assumption that every relevant part of the chain of event should be considered before final disposal as under criminal justice system no evidence can be discarded on the ground of irrelevant considerations.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in R.M Malkani v. State of Maharashtra that “a contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact. It is res gestae.” So far as acts and omissions accompanying a transaction are concerned much difficulty does not arise. Nature of the transaction itself indicates what should be its essential parts. Statement may also accompany physical happenings constituting res gestae. For example, A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the By-standers at the happening or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.In the application of this principle the courts have been very strict and cautious as statements can be easily concocted.
There are few tests to be satisfied before considering any incident as res gestae. Firstly, there must exist a causal relationship between the fact in issue and the fact which is intended to be given as evidence. Secondly, the facts undertaken must be so connected by proximity of time and place to the act. Thirdly, the test suggests that there should be a continuity of purpose and action running through the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given.
The res gestae doctrine has often been criticised. Professor Stone has opined that no evidential problem is so shrouded in doubt and confusion. Professor Wigmore has regarded it as not only useless but also harmful as it creates confusion about limitations of the other rules. therefore, each case in Criminal must be decided on its own merit and circumstances, and the rule under Section 6 must be applied with great caution.
