Latest News
Back
Doctrine of Res-Gestae
The Latin term, “Res-Gestae” literally means “Things done”, in the criminal jurisprudence it is used to refer to an event that took place and the words that were uttered or declared upon the happening of that event proved the that the event actually took place. It is not easy proving the happening of something in the court of law thus that makes this doctrine important.
The doctrine of Res-Gestae is taken into account in three types of scenarios pertaining to the conversations that took place in relation to the happening of an event. This doctrine can be applied in these aspects of a conversation, viz. where words or phrases in totality or some part of them refer to a physical act when certain exclamations are made at the happening of the event that subsequently lying about the event becomes impossible, there are certain which reflect the state of mind of a person.
When a particular statement is made by a bystander of an event or someone who has been the victim of the happening, the admissibility of such a statement is subject to the scrutiny on the following grounds; 1. Was the identification done relevant? 2. Was there any spontaneity in making such statement upon identification 3. Was there a chance that the statement could get concocted 4.Could there be an error of some kind?
This doctrine first came into existence in the case of Thompson v. Trevanion (1693) where it was held that if a statement accompanies an act then it is to be taken as an explanation. This doctrine finds its place in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, which 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 of at different times and places”. For the facts to qualify as a part of res-gestae it is essential they form a part of the same transaction. If the link that joins the facts is missing then the evidence cannot be admitted. The Indian judiciary interprets this doctrine in such a way that if there was a chance for the fabrication of the statements then it would not be admitted as evidence, the reason behind this is that after the happening of some startling event there is a loss in the capacity of a person to introspect as to what has happened thus if the statement is not taken immediately then there could be a chance of fabrication or concoction on the part of the witness.
There has been a broadening of the scope of this doctrine and thus now it includes the cases of domestic violence and child witnesses etc. given that during such cases the statements that are made are made from a state of shock.
There remains a lot of ambiguity as to this doctrine and a lot of the discretion is left to the courts and they are to decide whether the evidence is admissible or not, the idea behind the inclusion of this doctrine was to prevent the injustice but a lot of caution has been used by the Courts in the application of this doctrine and thus has not been given unlimited access to expand.
