Explain about Res Gestae

Res Gestae — Explained (Law of Evidence, India & Andhra Pradesh)

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its application in Andhra Pradesh

1. Statutory Basis — Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

In India, Res gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It states: “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 provision recognises that certain statements, acts, or events closely linked to the main occurrence form an integral part of the transaction and are admissible even if they might otherwise be considered hearsay.

2. Meaning and Scope

The term Res gestae means “things done” and covers all those facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that they help explain the circumstances of the case. The connection must be proximate in time, place, and continuity.

3. Indian Judicial Interpretation

• Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P., (1996) 6 SCC 241 — The Supreme Court explained that statements forming part of the same transaction are admissible under Section 6, even if they are hearsay, provided they are spontaneous and immediate.
• Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 1997 SC 768 — Held that the statement must be made contemporaneously with the act to be admissible under Section 6.
• State of A.P. v. P. Khaja Hussain, 2009 Cri LJ 2200 (AP) — The A.P. High Court reiterated that delay or opportunity for fabrication destroys the value of res gestae evidence.

4. Essentials for Admissibility (India/Andhra Pradesh)

• There must be a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
• The statement or act must be so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction.
• The connection should be in terms of time, place, and continuity of action.
• The statement must be spontaneous and made without opportunity for fabrication.

5. Examples in the Indian/AP Context

Example 1 — Road Accident: A pedestrian shouts, “The bus driver was drunk!” immediately after being hit. This statement, made under shock and part of the same transaction, may be admissible under Section 6.

Example 2 — Murder Case: In an A.P. case, the victim cried, “Brother, he stabbed me!” just seconds after the stabbing. The court admitted it as res gestae since it was part of the transaction (State of A.P. v. P. Khaja Hussain).

Example 3 — Theft in Vijayawada: Shopkeeper shouting “He took my gold chain!” while chasing the thief on M.G. Road — the statement is admissible as part of the res gestae.

6. Limitations

Courts in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in India have cautioned that:

• Statements made after a substantial time gap are generally excluded.
• If there is evidence of tutoring or influence, the statement loses its admissibility.
• It must be part of the same transaction, not a separate or subsequent occurrence.

Conclusion: In India, particularly under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 6), res gestae serves as a practical exception to the hearsay rule, admitting spontaneous, contemporaneous facts that explain the main transaction. Andhra Pradesh courts have consistently applied it with strict scrutiny on immediacy and continuity.

Author: Pavan Law Chambers • Law of Evidence (BSA)