The Surreptitiously concealed doctrine of Res gestae

The term "Res gestae" has no where been defined in the Indian Evidence Act however, section 6 of the Act is founded on the doctrine of res gestae. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence act state as follows

"Facts though not in issue, are so connected to the fact in issue to form part a part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred in same time and place or at different times and places"

What is the meaning of the term Res gestae ?

Res gestae is a latin term and the literal meaning is "things done" however, when interpreted into English it means "things done in a course of transaction.

What does transaction mean ?

Transaction refers to physical acts, omissions or the words uttered which form a series so interconnected and interwoven to the fact in issue making it relevant.The ensemble of the acts or omission and the accompanying words make the transaction so appropriate and probable to the fact in issue that it inevitably becomes relevant. However its admissibility can be included or excluded by the court.

What is res gestae as an act/omission ?

When the acts or omission which though may occur in the same time or place of the incident or at different times and places of the incident (in this i refer to the events which are though scattered but are integrated to a single transaction )but are part of a single scheme then such acts and omissions constitute a single transaction and are thus relevant.

What is res gestae as a statement ?

Even statements and the words uttered accompany the physical acts. But the words must have been uttered or the statement must have been said soon "before" or "after or "along" the incident. It must be contemporaneously made either during or before or subsequently after the occurrence of the incident. Words de-recenti weigh more value than the words uttered after a long or a considerably long period of time leaving room thereby to fabricate a false story.
This rule is also considered as an exception to the hearsay evidence.

What are the points to determine if a fact forms part of the same transaction or different transaction ?

Honestly speaking, there is no standardized method to determine as to which fact forms a part of transaction and which fact doesn't. However, these points guide to the correct conclusion

==> Proximity of time
==> Continuity of action
==> Transaction must form part of a single scheme
==> Existence of common purpose

Why was this doctrine so surreptitiously concealed by the drafters of the Indian Evidence Act ?

This doctrine has always been severely criticized by eminent jurists. It has been considered confusing, ambiguous and invaluable. It is considered useless as it admits the rule of hearsay evidence.Prof. Wigmore said " the phrase has not only been useless but positively harmful".

I tried to explain the doctrine of res gestae in a question answer format. Hope this methodology helped you.

If you have any queries or questions kindly comment below, i shall be more than happy to help.

Maitreyi