Doctrine of Res Gestae Sec. 6 of Indian Evidence Act

• Doctrine of Res gestae as found under section 6 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term has Latin origin and it means things done or “actus”.
• The doctrine of Res gestae is portrayed under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the following words-

“Facts which though not in issue are so connected with the facts in issue so as to form a part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and  place or at different times and places” – Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

• Res gestae, originally was used by the Romans to mean acts done or actus.
• The English and American writers described it as facts that form the same transaction. Res gestae are those facts which automatically or naturally form a part of the same transaction. They are the acts talking for themselves.
• Circumstantial facts are admitted as forming a part of res gestae i.e. it being a part of original proof of what has taken place. Statements may also accompany physical happenings like gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amounts to res gestae.
• The statements made or an act done has to be spontaneous and simultaneous to the main transaction. Where time gap is enough for fabrication or concoction, then statement or act shall not fall under section 6.

Few Illustrations:

• The cry of an in injured or wounded person.
• The cry of witness on seeing a murder happening
• The sound of a bullet being shot.
• The cry for help by the person being attacked.
• Gestures made by the person dying etc.

According to Section 6 the facts forming a part of the same transaction may or may not occur at the same place or same time. For example in the case of Ratten v. Queen, 1972 the victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator could connect her to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead body from her house from where the call was made and the time of death and the time of phone call was almost the same. The call made to the police came under the purview of section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband’s defence that he accidentally fired his wife.

---

Few case laws covering various aspects of the principle of res gestae as envisaged under section 6:

• The act may not have occurred at the same place:

 In case of Ratten v. Queen, already discuss in above.

• The time gap should be very little OR contemporaneous so that there is no time to fabricate or make up a story:

 In case of Sukhar v. State of UP, 1972 the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm the witness reached almost at the same time when the victim told that the accused at shot him. The victim did not die. The accused was charged with section 307 IPC, 1860. However during the trial the victim died for some other cause. Despite being hearsay evidence, the statement of the witness was held to be admissible as it formed a part of the same transaction. The event of the victim being shot and the witness being told by the victim about the accused was contemporaneous.

• Act of witness during the same time and same place where the offence was committed:

In case of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar,1974 the cry of the children from the house when their mother was being killed by their father became a part of the same transaction and therefore fell under section 6 and became admissible as valid evidence.

• Gestures made by the victim when dying:

 In case of Queen v. Abdullah, 1885 The gesture made by the victim who was dying, that the accused had killed her came under the purview of res gestae.

• When FIR becomes Res gestae:

In case of Shyam Nandan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1991 an FIR was lodged soon after the incident by persons who witnessed it. It was held to be a part of the happening so it came under the purview of section 6.