Doctrine of Res Gestae under BSA | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The doctrine of Res Gestae, a Latin term meaning "things done," is a well-established exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. Under Indian law, this doctrine has played a crucial role in allowing spontaneous statements or actions closely connected with a relevant fact to be admissible as evidence. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, retains and incorporates the Doctrine of Res Gestae.

Historical Evolution of the Doctrine of Res Gestae

The doctrine first emerged in the case of Thompson v. Trevanion (1693), where the court ruled that statements made simultaneously with an act are admissible as they help in explaining the event. 

The Romans originally used Res Gestae to signify "acts done" or "actus." Over time, English and American legal scholars described it as facts forming part of the same transaction.

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, in Article 3 of a digest of the Law of Evidence, discusses the relevancy of facts that form part of the same transaction as the facts in issue. According to him,

"A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong cr any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue."

In R v. Bedingfield (1879), an English case, a woman with a slashed throat emerged from a room and exclaimed, “Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me.” Chief Justice Cockburn ruled that the statement was inadmissible as res gestae, reasoning that it was made after the incident had concluded and was not part of the transaction itself.

Legal Provision – Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Previously Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act)

Section 4 states: 

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact 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.

Illustration: A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

This provision allows for the admission of evidence that may not be direct but is so inherently linked to the event that it provides clarity about the principal fact.

Essentials of Res Gestae

For a fact or statement to be considered part of Res Gestae, it must satisfy the following conditions:

1. The Statement Must Relate to the Main Transaction

The fact or statement must be directly connected to the principal event in question. It should provide context or explain the event in a meaningful way. Example: If a witness hears a victim screaming the name of the attacker during an assault, that statement becomes part of the transaction.

2. Spontaneity and Contemporaneity

The statement must be made immediately or contemporaneously with the event, leaving no time for reflection or fabrication. Any significant delay between the event and the statement may weaken its admissibility.

3. Statement Must Be Made by a Participant or a Witness

The person making the statement must either be directly involved in the incident or a bystander who witnessed it.

4. The Statement Must Explain or Illustrate the Incident

The statement should clarify, explain, or give immediate insight into the event. It should not be a mere narrative of past events but rather an integral part of the occurrence.

5. Absence of Pre-Meditation or Fabrication

The statement should be free from manipulation, influence, or afterthought. If the statement is made after the witness has had time to think, discuss, or receive external influence, it may be inadmissible.

6. The Statement Must Be a Natural Reaction to the Event

The emotional state and immediacy of the reaction play a role in determining admissibility.

7. The Fact and Statement Must Be Part of the Same Transaction

The statement should not be separate from the event but must be an inseparable part of the chain of events. The term "same transaction" is broadly interpreted and may extend to statements made just before or after the act if they form a continuous sequence. Example: If a person runs out of a house shouting, “The house is on fire!” immediately after an explosion, the statement is part of the same transaction.

Judicial Interpretations

Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle of Res Gestae, emphasizing its significance in delivering justice. The judiciary has provided clear guidelines on when statements qualify as part of the same transaction.

I) Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rattan Singh for the murder of Kanta Devi, a young pregnant woman shot dead in her courtyard at night. Singh, an ex-armyman, had developed an infatuation for Kanta Devi, which turned into hostility after she rejected his advances and reported him to the police.

On the night of the incident, she identified him as the armed intruder before being fatally shot. While the Sessions Court acquitted Singh, citing investigative lapses and omissions in the First Information Report (FIR), the Himachal Pradesh High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC, relying on witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence, including the victim’s dying declaration.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that omissions in the FIR do not invalidate substantive evidence, and affirmed that Kanta Devi’s statement was admissible under Section 32(1) and Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (currently Section 4, BSA). The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the conviction and life sentence.

II) Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999)

In this, the appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC for allegedly shooting his uncle, Nakkal, over a land dispute. The trial court relied on the victim’s statement to PW 2, which the High Court upheld, deeming it admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act (res gestae) (currently Section 4, BSA).

However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the statement was admissible, it lacked reliability as PW 2 was an inimical witness, and no independent corroboration was provided. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

Can F.I.R. be covered under the Doctrine of Res Gestae? 

An FIR can be covered under the doctrine of res gestae if it forms part of the same transaction and is registered immediately following the incident without any lapse of time, ensuring its spontaneity and credibility.

In Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974), the Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of an FIR lodged by a neighbour who heard the victim’s distress cries, as it was directly linked to the crime and occurred in continuation of the event. However, the Court clarified that not all FIRs would automatically qualify under res gestae—only those that are spontaneous, contemporaneous, and closely connected to the event without time for fabrication.

If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, allowing scope for manipulation or exaggeration, it loses its evidentiary value under this doctrine and may only serve as a corroborative piece of evidence rather than primary admissible evidence.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Res Gestae holds significant importance under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, ensuring that spontaneous statements and actions intrinsically connected to an event are admissible in court. Judicial precedents have been instrumental in shaping the interpretation of this doctrine, ensuring its application promotes justice while safeguarding against potential misuse.

References

[1] Thompson v. Trevanion, 1693 Skin L.R. 402

[2] R. v. Bedingfield, (1879) 14 Cox CC 34

[3] Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 768

[4] Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3883

[5] Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, 1974 SCR (3) 74

[6] Nature and Scope of Doctrine of Res gestae: An Analytical Study, Available Here

[7] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023