Hello friends, in this article Section 6: Facts which are part of the same transaction or the principle of res gesta has been explained. An attempt has been made to explain in simple language what is the relevance of facts, the benefits of the Doctrine of Res Gestae in evidence law etc.
Definition of res gestae
The word Res Gestae is a Latin word which means “the thing that has been done” and in English it means “the statements or actions that have taken place in connection with a transaction”.
The principle propounded in Section 6 is called the Principle of Res Gestae. The word ‘Res Gestae’ literally means ‘relevant facts’. The principle of Res Gestae is based on English law.
Thus, according to Section 6, such facts which are not the point of dispute, but those facts are related to the subject matter of the dispute in such a way that those facts are considered to be part of that incident i.e. the same transaction, even if they happened at the same time and Whether they happened at the same place or happened at different times and places, they are considered relevant facts and are called res gestae.
The essence of the principle of res gestae in evidence is that – facts which, although not in issue, are so connected with the facts in issue that they have become parts of the same transaction and hence they have become relevant as facts in issue, then every such Evidence of fact can be given
The main objective of this section is to make the evidence of disputed facts more understandable or clear so that a correct conclusion can be reached.
Definition of res gestae
The principle of Res Gestae or the fact being part of the same transaction has been mentioned in Section 6 of the Evidence Act, that is, the principle of Res Gestae has been implemented in Section 6,
There is a provision in Section 6 that – “Facts which, though not in issue, are connected with a fact in issue in such a way that they are part of the same transaction, those facts are relevant, whether at the same time and place or at different times and places.” Have happened.”
Example – A is accused of killing B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or bystanders at the time of the beating or for such a short time before or after it that it forms part of the same transaction, is a relevant fact.
Transaction means – “that the sequence of tasks should be in such a way that they are completely connected to each other. If this is so, then the closeness of time to each other in those works plays an important role.”
If a series of facts are linked together or not, it is a question of fact which depends on the proximity of time and place of incident, unity of goal and plan. Similar facts of event which are not part of the same transaction are not relevant in section 6.
Stephen has said in his Digest that – “Transaction is a group of facts which are so connected to each other that they can be given the same name, such as a crime, contract, tort or any investigation. A topic that is controversial.
In general, transaction can be used for any physical actions or for physical actions happening one after the other, which will also include the statements that happened along with the action or actions.
- Read Also – The ancient judicial system prevalent during the Hindu period in India before the arrival of the British
facts constituting a single transaction
In this, every fact is a part of another fact and there is no fact which is not related to another fact. For the purposes of section 6 the expression ‘same transaction’ is important. For the applicability of Section 6, a fact must be part of a single transaction with other facts.
For example – A is accused of murdering B with a sword. Here the acts done or words said by A or B or by persons standing nearby before or immediately after the blow of the sword “are part of the transaction and are relevant”.
This makes it clear that for a statement to be part of a transaction it is necessary that it be of the time of occurrence of the incident. If it is done after the event is over then it will not be considered relevant.
There is a case of Janatela V Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh in which a bus was burnt due to which many people got injured. He was taken to the hospital and his statement was recorded by the magistrate. These statements were not considered part of the same transaction, because they were made long after the incident. (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2791)
Similarly In the case of ‘V. Chandrashekhar Rao vs. P. Satyanarayan, it was said that – The telephone call made by the father of the accused to the husband of the deceased that the deceased has been murdered by his son is not part of the same transaction. (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2138)
- Read Also – The ancient judicial system prevalent during the Hindu period in India before the arrival of the British
Doctrine of Res Gestea
The principle of Res Gestae means events that are part of the same transaction. Res Gestae may be defined as that which is incidental to the main fact and which explains it, including acts and words which are closely related to it in such a way that they They are parts of a single transaction and without their knowledge the main fact cannot be understood properly.
The advantage of the principle of Res Gestae is that it allows the court to take into account all the essential elements of every transaction.
In every incident there is some act, omission or statement and every such act, omission or statement which throws some light on the nature of the transaction or shows its true character or quality, will be considered part of the transaction and evidence of it can be given.
The case of Ratten vs. Queen is important in this regard, the facts of this case were that a woman dialed the telephone shortly before she was shot and asked the operator girl to call the police. The operator had still not been able to do anything when the woman who was speaking with difficulty suddenly said her address and the call ended. The operator told the same address to the police.
Within five minutes the police reached that address and found the body of a woman. Her husband was accused of her murder and it was decided that the telephone call made by her and the words spoken in it, i.e. asking for the police, were considered as relevant evidence as part of that incident or transaction.
His telephoning in a state of panic indicated that his murder was intentional and not accidental. Because a person suffering from an accident could not even dream of calling the police before the accident.
There was a very close connection between the statement made by the deceased woman on the telephone and the incident that occurred immediately thereafter. Its place and time were closely related.
Act, omission, statement as part of transaction –
For example, to attack place A, money is collected at place A, weapons are given at place B and training is given to people at place C. All these actions may be far away from each other in time and space, but Will also be considered parts of the same transaction because the work of all of them is the same.
Similarly, some statements also happen with physical events, like – Every person screams when he gets injured, whether he screams because of pain, whether he screams for help, whether he calls the name of the person who has hit him and injured him, If this incident has happened in a public place then some people will gather and talk about the incident, they will be considered part of the same transaction.
facts forming part of the same transaction
For the applicability of Section 6, a fact must be part of a single transaction with other facts. The definition of similar or identical ‘transaction’ has not been given in the Indian Evidence Act. In fact, the nature of the word transaction is such that its proper definition cannot be given. Still its general meaning is – ‘an activity’.
To determine whether any fact is a part of the same transaction or not, it should be seen whether they are related to each other in such a way that they are related in terms of purpose, or in terms of cause and effect, or proximity in time.
From the point of view, can it be termed as a single continuous act? But proximity in time does not necessarily indicate the same transaction. Sometimes two actions can be considered to have occurred in sequence even if they occur a long time apart from each other.
Theory and anecdotal evidence of res jeste
Perceived evidence means a person who has not seen the incident happening but has heard about the incident from a person who has seen the incident happening. Thus such a person cannot give evidence because his knowledge is based on hearsay.
But hearsay evidence can be given when it is part of the incident, thus the principle of Res Gestae provides an exception to the principle of rejecting hearsay evidence.
In this regard There is a good case R. vs. Foster in which a person (witness) saw the truck run over, but not the accident. That person goes to the accident victim and obtains knowledge about the incident from him. Such a person can testify as to what the victim said because he was a part of the incident, even if he only heard it and did not see it. (1834 6 C&C 325)
Conditions of admissibility under section 6 –
If the transaction is carried out in several acts, then in order for the acts to form part of a single transaction, the time and place of these acts must be unity and proximity, continuity of time and purpose or plan. It should be connected to the unity of life in such a way that it is an unbroken link of a chain.
If even one link is missing in this work then they cannot be considered part of the same transaction.
When there is a question of admissibility of a fact in the form of a statement made along with an act, then for the fact to be admissible under Section 6, the following conditions must be met –
(i) The action or incident should be controversial or relevant and the statement is related to the incident and the statement clarifies the incident or action.
(ii) The statement must have been made substantially during or shortly before or shortly after the incident. The interval with these should not be so much that the narrator gets the opportunity to craft the story.
(iii) Statements which are words accompanying physical acts and which are explanatory, may be oral or written.
(iv) Statement is not evidence of fact. The fact (incident) must be proved by independent evidence. But according to Indian Evidence Law, if the statement is under Section 6 then it can be helpful in proving the fact (incident).
Example – Where the assailant entered the courtyard of the victim’s compound in the silence of the night and he recognized him, his statement before his death that the appellant was standing with a gun and had fired at him, are circumstances which are mutually exclusive.
They were so closely linked by proximity of time and place that the statement of the deceased became a part of the same transaction and was admissible under Section 6.
In Gentela Vijay Vardhan Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was said that – If there is even a small gap between the incident and the statement which is sufficient for fabrication, then that statement will not be part of “Res Gestae”. (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 279)
Evidence admissible in the form of res Gestae –
(i) a statement made by the accused at the place and time of the commission of the offence,
(ii) Statements made to a third person in sexual offenses against women,
(iii) Statement made by the testator at the time of registration of the will
(iv) Adoption deed in decision on the question of adoption
(v) Statement of the husband of a veiled woman regarding her signature on the promissory note.
In R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been decided that when a conversation is going on which is relevant because it is part of a transaction, then if it is taped immediately or at the same time, then such tape will be a relevant fact and it The race will be ready.
Agrahara Evidence as Res Gestae –
(i) Statements made long after the incident
(ii) Statement of a person who came there after the incident regarding obscene words said to a girl in a school.
(iii) Statement made by the accused about rape some time after the incident.
Relevancy of Facts
Relevance of Facts Evidence is an important means of settling controversial issues and finding out the truth. In relation to controversial topics, the quality of evidence is considered important. Relevancy of facts determines what facts can be proved by a party in a judicial proceeding and what are the means and methods of proving them?
For example, A files a suit against B to get possession of a house in whose favor B has written a deed of sale, and B rejects the claim. In the trial of this case, A would like to prove the fact that he has purchased a house from B and B has written the deed in his favor, this fact is a “disputable fact” as well as a relevant fact and the court is allowed to prove such facts. Will definitely give.
Evidence can be given to prove or disprove relevant facts and controversial facts in any case or case.
As provided in Section 5 of the Evidence Act, “In any suit or proceeding, evidence may be given of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as have been declared relevant and not of any others.” The provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 are noteworthy in the context of the relevance of the facts.
Important Article
Description of the Scope and Nature of Criminology
What is Criminology : Introduction, Definition, Importance
What is a Dying Declaration: conditions for its admissibility as evidence? Sec. 32 (1)