This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine of res gestae, a pivotal legal principle under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The principle allows certain facts to be admissible as evidence if they are so closely related to the occurrence of an event or transaction that they form part of the same res gestae. This article discusses the statutory framework, relevant judicial interpretations, and the importance of res gestae in legal proceedings. Through an exploration of landmark judgments, the concept's role in expanding the scope of admissible evidence and maintaining the credibility of the judicial process is explained.

Introduction
The doctrine of res gestae is foundational in evidence law, emphasizing the admissibility of statements and acts that form part of a continuous series of events. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, recognize this principle to allow evidence that might otherwise be considered hearsay. In criminal and civil litigation, where the authenticity and contemporaneity of facts are paramount, res gestae serves as an exception to the hearsay rule.

It enables courts to admit spontaneous utterances or actions connected with the main fact in issue, providing a broader evidentiary base. This article examines the development of res gestae, its applicability under the Indian and Bharatiya evidence laws, and the judicial interpretation of key case laws that have shaped this doctrine.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, codifies the rule of res gestae. It states that facts forming part of the same transaction as the fact in issue are relevant, regardless of whether they occurred at the same time and place. This section highlights the importance of the proximity of events in time and space, establishing a causal and logical connection between them. For example, spontaneous declarations made immediately after an incident may be admitted as evidence because they are perceived as part of the transaction and less likely to be fabricated.

Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, modernizes the evidentiary framework by incorporating broader principles of admissibility. Section 4 of this statute reflects the same essence as Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act but emphasizes the technological and societal advancements in evidence law. It extends the doctrine of res gestae to include digital and electronic evidence, such as video recordings, voice notes, and other real-time technological data, provided they form an inseparable part of the transaction under scrutiny.

Judicial Interpretation of Res Gestae:

Rattan v. State of Punjab, 1959 SCR 727
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the concept of res gestae. The court held that statements or actions made spontaneously under the pressure of an event without any opportunity for fabrication could be admissible under Section 6. The proximity of the statement to the incident and the speaker's emotional state were crucial in determining its admissibility.

Kewal Krishan v. State of Haryana, (1980) 3 SCC 616
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the application of the res gestae principle in cases where the evidence forms part of a continuous narrative. In this case, statements made by the victim moments before her death were admitted under Section 6, as they were seen as integral to the sequence of events leading to the crime.

Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 9 SCC 507
The court further clarified that for a statement to be admitted as part of res gestae, it must be contemporaneous with the incident. Statements made after the transaction, which are disconnected by time or context, were excluded from the ambit of Section 6.

Scope and Applicability of Res Gestae in Indian Law
The admissibility of facts under res gestae is conditional upon their immediate or proximate connection to the main fact in issue. Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of spontaneity and contemporaneity in applying Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and its equivalent in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. For instance, in the case of Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 3 SCR 368, the Supreme Court reiterated that the key factor is whether the act or statement was made under the influence of the main event, without the influence of deliberation or afterthought.

The legislative transition to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has broadened the scope of res gestae, especially concerning the use of digital evidence. Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam allows for the admissibility of video footage or audio recordings that capture events as they unfold, provided they are contemporaneous and form part of the transaction.

Challenges in Application
While res gestae serves as an important exception to the hearsay rule, its application is not without challenges. The courts often struggle with determining the boundaries of spontaneity, particularly in cases where there is a delay between the main event and the act or statement in question. Furthermore, in an era of increasing technological complexity, ensuring the authenticity and contemporaneity of digital evidence presents new evidentiary hurdles.

In State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, the admissibility of electronic records was questioned, with the court emphasizing the importance of securing a proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This illustrates the growing need for corroborative evidence when admitting digital or electronic data under the res gestae principle.

Comparative Jurisprudence

The doctrine of res gestae finds its origins in common law and has been adopted by various legal systems worldwide. The principles articulated under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam resonate with the rules of admissibility in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where the courts recognize the relevance of spontaneous utterances and actions that form part of a larger event.

In the English case of R v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox 341, the principle of res gestae was applied to admit statements made by a victim shortly before her death. Similarly, in the United States, res gestae plays a vital role in the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, which governs the admissibility of hearsay exceptions, including present sense impressions and excited utterances.

Conclusion
The doctrine of res gestae, codified under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, remains a crucial tool in expanding the scope of admissible evidence in Indian courts. By allowing spontaneous acts and statements that are inherently connected to a transaction, the law ensures that the fact-finding process is comprehensive and reliable. However, its application requires careful judicial scrutiny to maintain the balance between relevance and hearsay. As the legal landscape evolves with technological advancements, courts must continue refining the standards of admissibility to ensure justice is served.

References:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 6
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 4
• Rattan v. State of Punjab, 1959 SCR 727
• Kewal Krishan v. State of Haryana, (1980) 3 SCC 616
• Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 9 SCC 507
• Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 3 SCR 368
• State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515
• R v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox 341