Res Gestae: A Critical Analysis Of Its Judicial Application And Expansion In Indian Evidence Law

By Dedipya Tawri Views: 19258

The doctrine of Res-gestae forming an exception to hearsay plays a Vitol role in admissibility of evidence in the court. Rooted in the common law and codified under Section - 6 of the Indian evidence[1] or Section-4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 act allows the admission of statements that are immediate or spontaneous with the act or immediately after it will form the part of the same transaction as fact in issue.

The paper aims to critically analyse the application of Res-gestae by judiciary in various legal pronouncements, further this paper will explore the expansion of this doctrine where court applied a different approach in its application particularly in cases of crime against women or cases involving children. While Res gestae plays a crucial role in admissibility of evidence its wider interpretation blurs the line between the rule and its exception, underscoring the need for consistent and cautious application.

Introduction
The hearsay evidence is generally out of court statements are inadmissible in court as it is unreliable. In the nascent stage it was reliable as they propounded the belief that statements made in oath are reliable. Later in 1700 it was only corroborative evidence not sole evidence as the concept of oath was not accepted. However later in time it was realised that out of court does not give opportunity to probe and that was one of the major reasons for exclusion of this doctrine. There comes the doctrine of Res gestae an exception to hearsay.

Res gestae, is a Latin term means "things done" it refers to the events at the issue or the things said or done contemporaneously in a close proximity. These statements or actions are spontaneous and relevant that it has an admissible value in the court of law. It is an exception to hearsay. For example, a person witnessing a crime is overwhelmed by the event that there is no way of concoction or distortion of the utterance.

Let us first understand the origin of Res gestae, the leading case of Thompson v. Trevanion[2] in 1693 established this doctrine where declarations made after an action subject its confirmation. But it was not until Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird[3] when this doctrine began to be freely used in 1805. Thus, we can say that doctrine of Res gestae gained his popularity in 1800.

The concept of Res gestae was deeply rooted in common law where courts allowed statements admissible in the course of an event as it was considered reliable. Later modern jurisprudence allowed this exception to hearsay when statements were made after an event.

Hearsay Evidence:

In simple words hearsay evidence means any evidence given by the person who is not directly present at the place of occurrence or the place where the incident took place, he has not seen or heard or did some act furtherance of the fact in issue. He has witnessed the incident indirectly.

This makes it more obvious that why it is inadmissible in the court firstly the person making hearsay statement does not own a personal liability to the fact in issue, he can contradict stating that the he does not own a responsibility and leading to a probable reason to escape.

Secondly the truth may get diluted by repetition from one person to another thirdly chances of fraud as the person can escape his responsibility.

The exception to this rule is the doctrine of Res gestae unlike hearsay they are admissible.

Res Gestate:

In the Indian context Section 6 of the Indian evidence act deals with Res gestate it read as[4]:
"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 or at different times and places"

This clearly states that statements which are made in the course of same transaction that means during or immediately after an event is admissible, provided that they are spontaneous or part of the same transaction.

The transaction under this doctrine are the entire situation of the facts and circumstances of the case that determines its outcome. It can be either a single action or related physical action or terminology that accompanies those acts or act. The relevant facts are the related events that establish a condition of things which existed or the occasion or consequence of related events that enabled their life or transaction.

Judicial Interpretations:

The Judiciary In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao V. State Of A.P[5].
Section 6 of the Evidence Act and some of the succeeding sections embody the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res gestae. They are in the nature of exception to "hearsay" rule. Section 6 permits proof of collateral statements which are so connected with the facts in issue as to form part of the same transaction. Whether the statement made by a witness was a part of the same transaction or not is to be considered in the light of the circumstances of each case.

The principle is that it should be so intimately connected with the fact in issue as to be a spontaneous utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion or a spontaneous reaction thereof, there being no opportunity for deliberately fabricating the statement. In other words, the statement which is a part of res gestae does not narrate a past event, but it is the event itself speaking through a person thus excluding the possibility of any design behind it.

The court in Chhotka vs The State[6] made an observation that:
"The obvious ground of admission of such evidence as is referred to in Section 6 is the spontaneity and immediacy of the act or declaration in question. The facts deposed to must form part of the transaction. The requirement is that the statement sought to be admitted must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it and not at such an interval of time from it as to allow of fabrication or to reduce the statement to a mere narrative of past events."

This case laid down certain guidelines of Res gestate such as:

The facts which lead to the existence of certain facts or the facts in issue are relevant.
The facts must be immediate and spontaneous to the facts in issue.
Certain declarations which are necessary to explain the certain facts in issue are relevant.

In the case of Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr.[7] The accused assassinated his own daughter and wife. The father of the dead wife said over a phone call the father of the accused informed him about this mishappening. However there has been no decision as to whether the accused had murdered the deceased was given to the accused father at the time or immediately after the incident as part of the same transaction, therefore the deceased father assertion cannot be found important under this clause.

In Bishna Bhiswadeb Mahato & Ors. V. State Of West Bengal[8]:
In this case the two-witness arrived at the scene of the occurrence soon after it occurred. The findings were deceased remains, bodies of hospitalized patients etc. The injured witness informed them about the incident, the two-witness testimony backed by defence witness testimony was held admissible.

We can conclude that judiciary by time and again contemplated that statements made at the time of the incident or immediately after would be admissible but not to such an incident that it would justify deception.
Expansion of the doctrine of Res gestae

The Indian judiciary expanded the usage of this doctrine in the cases of rape, child witness and domestic violence. In the case of rape or domestic violence the victim experiences a shock subject to such heinous crime. The res gestae doctrine allows only the spontaneous with the act or immediately after it. However, since the traumatic incident does not allow the victim to react. Court in these cases may allow the statements to be admitted if it can be proved that the victim was recovering from the shock.

In cases of children in Uttam Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[9] where a child was sleeping with his late father during the attack when a sound of axe strikes the deceased throat. The child shouted and taken the assistance of his mother in identifying the perpetrator. Since the shout was probable the testimony was found admissible as this a part of the same transaction. The law is relaxed in situations involving children as it is dependent on the fact as how children deal with trauma their comments are made when accident arise at the first safe chance to talk.

A Critical Analysis Of The Res Gestae

Res gestate embodies in Section 6 of the IEA works on the essence that the matter connected to the fact in issue which forms the part of the same transaction are relevant in the court of law. This doctrine is an exception to hearsay which is generally not admissible as it is prone to fabrication. What makes res gestate as an exception is immediacy and spontaneity of statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue, and they forming a part of the same transaction.

The courts through various judicial pronouncements have interpreted the doctrine as spontaneous act during or after the occurrence. However, it has broadened the scope in cases of rape, statements involving children as owing to sensitivity of the heinous crime the immediate response is not apprehended as the incident may not allow the victim to react immediately after. And in cases of children too this rule is relaxed owing to mental development in a child and their ways in dealing with the traumatic incidents.

Res gestate may look like a stepping stone to justice in the admissibility of evidence. However, it may be unreliable as emotions, stress can lead to fabrication and disrupts its authenticity. Another reason can be when judiciary attempts to apply this doctrine broadly it may categorize some events which may not be the part of the same transaction. The inconsistence ruling of different cases and the judicial discretion in applying this doctrine may lead to different conclusions making the line blur between hearsay and res gestate.

Conclusion
The doctrine of Res-gestae in Section 6 of the evidence act serves as an exception to the rule of hearsay. It ensures that spontaneous, immediate acts during or after the act is admissible in the court, to ensure justice. Over the time with wider application and inconsistent ruling the line between the rule and the exception is starting to blur. It is need for a structured approach, clear guidelines and consistent ruling to make the admissibility of the evidence more reliable and diminish the chances of fabrication and miscarriage of justice. Apart from the wider interpretation and the vagueness this doctrine serves as a crucial and vital role in the Evidence act.

End Notes: