Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Res Gestae under the Indian Evidence Act, 1972

Introduction:

The general meaning of the term Res Gestae is “things done or actus” or we can say that any fact which had occurred in the series of the same transaction and helped to prove the certain incident or event can be admissible by the court under the purview of Res Gestae. In layman language, we can say that the acts, circumstances and statements that are incidental to the facts of a litigated matter. The concept of Res Gestae is embodied under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1972.  

Indian Evidence Act, 1972

The Indian Evidence Act is a mode or instrument through which the court upheld its function by reaching the truth of each case. The act of Evidence was enacted on 15^th March 1872 but enforced on 1^st September 1872. The term Evidence is defined under Section 3 of aforementioned and evidence means any-thing legal or no-legal which can be presented in the court to strengthen your case or prove certain claims or issues can be treated as Evidence. The law of Evidence is both substantive as well as procedural in nature and from 1972 it has gone through various amendments which make this law more flexible and appropriate. For example- Earlier there was no value of electronic evidence under the act but now section 65-B of Evidence Act talks about the evidentiary value of Electronic Evidences. If we talk about the nature of Evidence law then it is Lex fori (which means the law of the country in which action is brought) in nature. The Indian Evidence Act is categorised into 3 main parts –

1.    Relevancy of Facts [ Chapter 1-2]

2.    Mode of Proof [Chapter 3-6]

3.    Production and Effect of Evidence [Chapter 7-11]

Applicability of Indian Evidence Act

Section 1 of the Evidence act talks about its extent and applicability. According to this section, it is applicable throughout the nation including Jammu and Kashmir. It is applicable to all the Judicial proceedings in or before a court, including court Martials under Army Act, Navy Act etc. The term Judicial Proceeding is defined under section 2(i) of Criminal Procedure Code.  So, this act is not applicable-

1.    To any proceeding which is non-judicial in nature. For example- Arbitration.

2.    Affidavits but in exceptional cases, they can be treated as evidence. For example- Sheroj Singh V. A.P Batra [AIR 1955 ALL 638], it was held that an affidavit can be treated as evidence only if the court allows it under the special circumstances.

3.    Evidence Act is not applicable to any proceeding related to the matter of the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and Air Force Act.

4.    Not applicable to Contempt of Court proceedings.  

5.    Not applicable to Tribunals or Labour Courts.

Need and Objective

The main objective of the Indian Evidence Act is to assist the judges while giving decisions on a particular case. This act enables the court to decide which facts or evidence are relevant and which are not. Enforcement of this act leads to speedy trials and help in the transparency of decisions too. This act gives an equal chance to present evidence, to strengthen their stand on particular issues. The Indian Evidence act is also Vis a Verse to the criminal justice system as it gives duly care on the rights of the accused person.  The purpose of the law of Evidence is not limited to the extent of showing proof to the court rather it has multidimensional purposes too.

Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act (Doctrine of Res Gestae):

Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction (Res Gestae). Basically, Res Gestae is in English Concept which was originated by Romans in between 1610-1620 and adopted by the Indians in the 19^th Century. The concept of Res Gestae first appeared in 1963 in the case of Thompson V. Trevanion.

Res Gestae means any fact, transaction or an event. It will include everything that may be said to be fairly connected with the main event under consideration. Any fact which is naturally and automatically connected with the main event and in which there is no element of fabrication will be considered to be Res Gestae. Any fact which is in Continuity with the main event or which is continuous will be considered to be the Res Gestae.

Illustration

This section could also be understood with the assistance of an illustration appended to the present section. So the issue which may be formulated is that “on such and such date time and place whether A has committed the murder of B”. whether A stabbed B by a knife which ends up in his death”. These are the problems which are framed by the court during the trial of A and these are referred to as framing of the charge. All the evidence which through light on such incident is permissible, for instance-one witness C deposed that he saw A stabbing B on such and such date, time and place. The court will allow his deposition because his statement may be a direct account of the incident which is before the court or this statement amounts to answer to the question which is directly before the Court. Now suppose there’s another person E who has not seen the incident but deposes before the court that shortly before he saw the body of B, he saw and heard A running towards B carrying a knife and shouting. This deposition which isn’t an immediate answer to the question before the court whether A killed B (it should be discarded because it’s not a solution to the question) but this deposition tells about the incident (running and shouting with a knife in hand) is in the proximity of the incident in question and throws light on the incident of killing (question before the court) thus it amounts to a part of the transaction So the court will allow this deposition under this section.

The essentials elements for the Doctrine of Res Gestae are –

1.    The statement made by the person or act of the person should be continuous in nature or we can say that it should be spontaneous within the same transaction.

2.    The statement should have enough information to explain or brief about the incident which means the facts should be connected to the main event then only the given fact can be treated under Res Gestae.

3.    The statements should be made by the participants of the transaction.

4.    The statement made should not be an opinion and must be a statement.

These are the essentials which every fact has to be fulfilled or the essentials which the court observed while declaring any fact as Res Gestae. It is pertinent here to note that this doctrine is an exception to the Hearsay Rule.     

What is Hearsay Rule

Section 60 of the act deals with Hearsay Evidence which states that any deceleration or fact given by the 3rd person or any party who is not connected with the case, the statement or fact given by them can not be treated as the evidence. Because there are high chances of false or fabricated evidence that’s why it is considered admissible in the court of law. Hearsay is linked with indirect evidence only. It is also known as the Second-Hand Evidence. That’s why the Doctrine of Res Gestae is an exception to Hearsay Evidence. Not only the doctrine of Res Gestae but there are many exceptions which are given under section 60. For example- Section 33 is also an exception of hearsay evidence.

Criticism of Res Gestae

From its very inception, the doctrine of Res Gestae is subjected to Criticism. This Doctrine has ample amount of loopholes which is overlapping with the well-defined principles under the Evidence Law. The test or essentials of this Doctrine is not themselves are easy to define and that’s why keeping changing according to the merit of the Case. Many Jurists have also pointed out that this Doctrine is ambiguous and harmful to use.

Test for Res Gestae

There are no such codified tests which are done or observed by the court for the applicability of any evidence under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The important tests are-

1. Test of Applicability – This test includes Proximity of time and place and Continuity of time and purpose.
2. Test of Admission – In this test court will observe the following points such as was it spontaneous, was it a relevant identification, was their opportunity of error etc.
3.  Three tests for Res Gestae –

 a. Cause and Effect

 b. Time and Place

 c. Continuity of Action and Purpose

Landmark Case Laws

• Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, VIII (1999) SLT 270: In this case, the Supreme Court directed various guidelines on accepting any evidence under the purview of Section 6 of Indian Evidence. The court said that any fact which is Continuous in nature and doesn’t have a reasonable time for its fabrication can be treated as Evidence under the rule of Res Gestae. 
• Krishna Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana [4(2011) 7 SCC 130]: This was the landmark judgment given by the supreme court because in this case it was held that doctrine of res gestae is an exception to hearsay rule of evidence. It was also pointed out by the supreme court in the same case that the statement to be admissible under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act must be in the continuity of the same transaction.
• Bishna V. State of West Bengal [AIR 2006, SC 302]: In this case, it was held that any witness comes immediately after the incident although he/she is not eyewitness and prosecution also my take defence of it that particular person is not an eyewitness to the incident but then also the statement given by that person can be treated as Res Gestae because he received information directly or from the authentic source.  
• Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao And Anr vs State of Andhra Pradesh [(1996) 6 SCC 241]: The Supreme court held that if there was a reasonable time lapse between the occurrence of the incident and recording statement of the accused then that statement will remain outside of the purview of doctrine of Res Gestae as it gave immense time to accused to fabricate the statement or to think the statement in his/her favour.

Conclusion

 As we have already discussed in the above article that the scope and horizons of the doctrine are expanding through various judicial decisions over time. This particular trend, in a way, justifies the legislative rationale behind the provision and may even be helpful for the overall realization of the constitutional goal of ‘justice for all’ which has been subtly highlighted in the preamble.