May 25,2019:
The Author, Nidhi Garg is a student of BA.LLB (H) at University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University. She interned with LatestLaws.com.
Res Gestae is a Latin term which mean “Things done”. Res Gestae is used to refer to a declaration that is made at an event that proves the event happened because the words were uttered upon witnessing the event.
For example, res gestae would exist if a person yelled “FIRE” upon noticing that a fire had broken out in a crowded movie theater. This declaration can be interpreted as proof that a fire actually happened.
Doctrine of Res Gestae
The doctrine of Res Gestae is a term used to describe what is called the “Start-to-end” period of a felony. Res Gestae was once considered as an exception to the Hearsay rule. This is because it concerns a declaration that is uttered so closely to the occurrence of an event that it can be used to prove that the event actually happened.
Further, because a statement made under the Doctrine of Res Gestae is made naturally and spontaneously, there is little room for misunderstandings or misinterpretations by anyone who hears it. Therefore, if a witness were to testify and repeat such a statement to the Court, that statement could then be used as evidence. Courts thus believe such statements to be thoroughly reliable.
Doctrine of Res Gestae statements can fall into one of the three categories:
- Words or phrases that either wholly or partially explain a physical act
- Exclamations that are so spontaneous that they prevent anyone from successfully lying to the contrary
- Statements that prove an individual’s state of mind
In some jurisdictions, res gestae has also been used in connection with the admission of sketches the police draw of potential suspects.
The most complicated area of criminal jurisprudence is the tool of proving, what type of evidence is presented for proving in court of law. Here is one of the principles of law of evidence is Res Gestae. The doctrine of Res Gestae is based on the assumption that every relevant part of the chain of event is consider before the final disposal by the judiciary as under criminal justice system so that no evidence can be discarded on the ground of irrelevant considerations even if some technicality is also differs from case to case.
The reason behind is for the adoption of the doctrine of res gestate under the criminal law as the necessity of proving some relevant facts. It is not possible for the proving of whole incident without the helping of some missing facts. It may be proved by some other piece of evidence examined and titled as doctrine of Res Gestae. Res Gestae is a Latin phrase which means that forming part of the same transaction. It means that relevant portion of the event which is connected with directly or indirectly with the main transaction of the event.
The meaning of doctrine of Res Gestae is unclear and it is not definitive. It is so confused term as we cannot say that what is exactly consider as the doctrine of Res Gestae. It is not stated clearly because it is discretion left to the courts to consider the relevant evidence based on the whole facts of the cases.
History of Res Gestae:
The rule of Res Gestae first appeared in the year 1693 in Thompson v. Trevanion, where it was held that declarations accompanying an act are receivable in explanation thereof. In the year 1736, in Ambrose v. Clendon declarations were again held to be admissible if concomitant with facts. Then the use of the doctrine of Res Gestae was in a brief discussion over a point of evidence in Home Tooke’s trial for high treason.
Nevertheless, the development of this doctrine did not begin until after Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird, in 1805, when the phrase in question had begun to be freely used in connection with it; and only since the middle of the 1800s has it been possible to say that this Exception was firmly established. In the infamous decision of Cockburn C.J. in R v. Bedingfield, the principle of Res Gestae and exception to the hearsay rule was discussed. Lord Justice Cockburn held that the statement was not admissible, since it was something stated by her after it was all over. He said that it was not part of the transaction, that it was said after the transaction was all over, the transaction being the cutting of the throat. Although this decision has been effectively overruled, it accurately illustrates the erstwhile principle used to define the Res Gestae exception, which often resulted in unjust consequences.
Actually the decision of Bedingfield case was too strict. However, this decision was overruled in the case of Ratten v.R where under common law, the doctrine of Res Gestae was defined in liberal and wider terms. Another case Ratten v Queen, Lord Wilber force said: “Evidence would have been admissible as part of the Res Gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events”.
Res Gestae under Indian Evidence Act:
Section 6 of the Indian evidence Act explains the principle of res gestae. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court of law. But, res gestae is exception to hearsay rule. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly any time for concoction. So, such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.
Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what is a transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. If any statement is made under the stress of excitement than such statement from part of the same transaction and is admissible before the court of law. The strength of Sec.6 lies in its vagueness. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its own merit. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible under Sec.6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the judge.
Test for Res Gestae:
1.The first test says that if there a relation of cause and effect or vice versa, i.e. a causal relation between the fact in issue and the fact which is intended to be given as evidence, then that fact can be said to form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue. This test, however, is of not much worth as every event is the collaborative effect of innumerable effects. Now, supposing that all these causes and effects are to be treated as relevant and evidence is permitted to be given of all these facts, then the very purpose of restricting the evidence in a court of law to relevant facts is lost. The precious time of the court will be rendered in vain in listening to evidence of remote causes and distant effects.
2. The second test suggests that facts connected by proximity of time and place would come under the section. No doubt facts happening at about the same time and place can be treated as closely connected and therefore relevant under the section. But this is not enough, because the section itself contemplates the possibility of facts happening at different times and places, being connected with the fact in issue, so as to form part of the same transaction.
3. A third test suggests that there should be a continuity of purpose and action running through the fact in issue and the fact of which evidence is sought to be given. This, it is submitted, is considered equally unworthy as it merely substitutes one vague phrase for another.
Judicial Observations in Res Gestae doctrine:
Indian Judiciary has interpreted Res Gestae as only those statements made contemporaneously with the event or immediately after it, but not ‘at such interval of time’ as to allow fabrication.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan
The accused murdered his wife and daughter. The statement by the father of deceased wife that father of accused told him on telephone that his son has killed the deceased. Absence of a finding as to whether the information given by accused’s father to the deceased’s father that the accused had killed the deceased was either of the time of commission of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form the part of same transaction. The statement cannot be considered as relevant under section
2. Bishna alias Bhiswadeb Mahato & Others v. State of West Bengal
the two witnesses came to place of occurrence immediate after incident had taken place. They found dead body of deceased and other injured victim in unconscious state and also found mother of deceased weeping as also injured witness present there. They heard about entire incident from injured witness and other witness including role played by each of accused and others. The evidence of these two witnesses corroborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also the allegations made in the F.I.R. Their evidence is admissible under section 6.
- Jagser v. State of Haryana
In the present case, corroboration to the dying declaration comes from the statement of Mangat Ram, brother, Ruldu, father of the deceased, who provided eye witness account, supporting the prosecution story on material aspects. Although they do not state that the accused had set Yashin Khan on fire in their presence, since according to them both the accused had taken Yashin Khan and his wife Pinki to a room of the house, so as to resolve the dispute but they said that after some time Yashin Khan while on fire came running out of the house. Applying the principle of res gestae, it comes out that both accused are clearly connected with the crime. The medical evidence duly corroborates the ocular evidence.
4. Sri Samar Das vs The State of Tripura
The following important issues arise for consideration in the present appeal:
(a) As to whether a minor witness is competent to testify in the Court in terms of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act) and whether her deposition can be considered for examining the guilt of the accused;
(b) As to whether her testimony necessarily requires corroboration; and
(c) As to whether testimony of the parents of the victim can be considered, applying the doctrine of Res Gestae, in view of Section 6of the Evidence Act.
We find the testimonies of the parents, even if hearsay in nature, being in close proximity to the time of crime and relating to the act which is in issue, substantially contemporaneous to the acts in issue to be proven as a fact, can be referred to and relied upon for establishing the prosecution case.
Res Gestae an Exception to Hearsay:
Res Gestae is an exception to the principle that hearsay evidence is no evidence. Res Gestae being admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule can be stated as being a hearsay statement, relating to an extraordinary evidence or condition that was made while the witness was still under the effect and stress of excitement caused by that event or condition. The reasoning provided behind such statement is that the witness while providing such exceptional hearsay statement lacks reflective capacity due to the event being so startling, and is only able to speak the truth. In Sukhar v State of U.P. the question whether the witness could give evidence of what the victim told him was raised? It was held that Section 6 as an exception to general rule that hearsay is not admissible as evidence. But it has to be established that ‘’the statement was about contemporaneous with the fact in issue and there should not be any interval for fabrication, so that it forms part of the same transaction.” In this case the evidence of the witness is admissible. When the witness came to the place of occurrence where they found the dead body of the deceased and injured victim in unconscious state.
Criticism:
Even when the development of the term Res Gestae was in its infancy, there was sign that it was not altogether regarded with favor. It became popular because of its convenient obscurity. Wigmore has also been highly critical of the use of the phrase Res Gestae. He has written that it is "not only entirely useless, but even positively harmful."' The phrase is useless because "every rule of Evidence to which it has ever been applied exists as a part of some other well-established principle and can be explained in the terms of that principle. The phrase is harmful because by its ambiguity it invites the confusion of one rule with another and thus creates uncertainty as to the limitations of both. Thus, Wigmore concluded that the "Res Gestae, "should never be mentioned.
Conclusion:
Usually evidence is brought under Res Gestae when it cannot be brought under any section of the Indian Evidence Act. The intention of the law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are dismissed due to lack of evidence. Courts have always been conscious that this doctrine should never be expanded to an unlimited extent. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its own merit. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible under sec. 6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the Judge. This doctrine is more complex and vague, this forms the loophole.
The ambiguity of this doctrine is highly criticized. Therefore we can see that what originally started meant only acts done (actus) to form Res Gestae, now covers all acts done or statements made during the happening of the crime, at the same time or same place of the crime or different times at different places, is said to be forming a part of the same transaction and thereby admissible by virtue of doctrine of Res Gestae. Dean Wigmore comments, “The phrase Res Gestae is, in the present state of the law, not only entirely useless, but even positively harmful… It ought therefore wholly to be repudiated, as a vicious element in our legal phraseology. It should never be mentioned.”
