TABLE OF CONTENTS :

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………… 4
2. The Concept of Res Gestae……………………………………………… 4
3. Res Gestae under Indian Evidence Act (ACT 1 OF 1872)……………….. 5
4. Test for Res Gestae………………………………………………………. 8
5. Res Gestae an Exception to Hearsay…………………………………...... 8
6. Criticism of Doctrine of Res Gestae……………………………………. 9
7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 10
8. Bibliography……………………………………………………………… 10

1
INTRODUCTION
RES GESTAE, known otherwise in other jurisdictions as the Excited Utterance
Rule, is a rule of evidence that is as old as English Law itself. The doctrine initially
developed as a hearsay concept and has been used to explain the admissibility of
evidence of unchanged actions committed in conjunction with the crime for which
a defendant is being prosecuted.
The phrase Res Gestae is a Latin term which means simply „a transaction’,
„things done’1 or „the subject matter’ . 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. „Res Gestae‟ of any case properly consists of
that portion of actual world‟s happenings out of which the right or liability,
complained or asserted in the proceeding, necessarily, arises. The doctrine of Res
Gestae is a term used to describe what is called the “Start-to-end” period of a
felony. It is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule of evidence, and it usually
applied to statement made contemporaneously with the fact in issue.
The doctrine of Res Gestae is based on the assumption that every relevant part of
the chain of event is considered before the final disposal by the judiciary as under
Criminal Justice System so that no evidence can be discarded on the grounds of
irrelevant considerations even if some technicality is also differs from case to case.
The reason behind the adoption of the doctrine of res gestae under the Criminal
Law is the necessity of proving some relevant facts. And it may be proved by some
other piece of evidence examined and titled as Res Gestae.

THE CONCEPT OF RES GESTAE

The concept of res gestae cannot be fully understood without first understanding its
meaning. The term „Res Gestae‟ has been used in two senses. In the restricted
sense it means “ world’s happening out of which the right or liability in question
arises ”. In wider sense it covers “ all the probative facts by which res gestae are
reproduced to the tribunal where the direct evidence of witness or perception by
the court are unattainable ”. In legal parlance, it is defined as “ second hand
statements considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence in a
law suit when repeated by a witness because they were made spontaneously and

1 th
Garner, B. A, Black’s Law Dictionary 9 Ed. Texas: West Publishers, 2004 at p. 1425

2
concurrently with an event. ”2 Also it is defined as “ the acts, circumstances, and
statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated matter and are
admissible in evidence given their relevant association with that fact.”3 Merriam-
Webster’s dictionary defines it as “… the facts that form the environment of a
litigated issue and are admissible in evidence.”4 Also broadly speaking, res gestae
is sometimes referred to as “ the excited utterance rule,”5 especially under the
American and Canadian legal systems. Furthermore, it can be seen as “ the events
with which the court is concerned or others contemporaneous with them.”6
According to Taylor, “ Res Gestae is a fact, transaction or an event in continuity
with the main transaction. It will include everything which can be considered to be
fairly connected with the main event.”
Admittedly , there is perhaps no legal principle, upon which the courts are more
uniform in concurrence than that of res gestae. The meaning of res gestae is
unclear and it is not definitive. The application of the principle is so varied , and
the decisions so conflicting , that any attempts to reconcile them seems, in many
case, difficult. Thus the discretion is left to the courts to consider the relevant
evidence based on the whole facts of the cases.

RES GESTAE UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

The term Res Gestae has not been used in the Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872),
but SECTION 6 is analyzed under the head of res gestae in determining the
relevance of facts. Thus SECTION 6 of the Indian Evidence Act states that :
SECTION 6 : Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction :
“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 section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the
technical expression Res Gestae [i.e. the things done (including words spoken) in
the course of a transaction], but such facts must “ form part of the same
transaction.” 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

2
“Res Gestae” http://legal-dictionary,thefreedictionary.com. Visited 12/08/2020 at 1:50pm.
3
“Res Gestae” http://dictionary.reference.com. Visited 12/08/2020 at 2:00pm.
4
“Res Gestae” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res gestae . Visited 12/08/2020 at 2:10pm.
5
Williams, A.G: “Abolishing the Excited Utterance Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay”, Kansas Law
Review Vol. 63 200014 Pp. 718-720
6 th
Martin, A.E: Oxford Dictionary of Law: 5 Ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2003 p. 439.

3
ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the main transaction, it fails to be a Res
Gestae and hence inadmissible.
Transaction, defined :- 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, or any
other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.7 Roughly, a transaction may be
described as any physical act, or series of connected physical acts, together with
the words spoken by the person doing such acts, the person to whom such acts are
done or any other person or persons. Therefore, the scope of res gestae resides
within statements, acts or facts in both criminal and civil cases which are closely
associated in time, place and occurrences with some other act, event or state of
affairs which is in issue, which can be said to form part of same transaction or
occurrence as the fact in issue and which is admissible in evidence.
 Conditions under which a declaration or statement or act can be
admissible in court as forming part of Res Gestae :
1. Spontaneous statements being nearly comtemporaneous with the fact
in issue :
This criterion was first laid down in the leading case of Ratten v. R8 . In this case,
the appellant was charged with the murder of his wife with a shotgun wound. Here
Lord Wilberforce said that “There was ample evidence of the close and intimate
connection between the statement ascribed to the deceased and the shooting which
occurred very shortly afterwards. They were closely associated in place and in
time. 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 deceased by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary event. It carried
its own stamp of spontaneity”.
This aspect of the doctrine was also applied by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rattan Singh v. State of HP9. Here, the accused intruded into the courtyard of the
victim's house at night and inflicted gunshot injury on her. She stated before her
death that the accused was standing with a gun before her. She explained the time
and space proximity between her and the assailant. The statement was held to be a
part of the transaction and relevant as such under Section 6 as res gestae.
However, all spontaneous statements in some way connected with the transaction
under investigation are not admissible. It must be shown that the statement is a

7
Stephen’s Digest of Evidence, Article 3
8
(1972) A.C. 378
9
AIR 1997 SC 768 : 1997 Cr LJ 833

4
part of the transaction.
In the case of R. v. Bedingfield10, a woman, with her throat cut, came suddenly out
of a room, in which she had been injured and shortly before she died, said “Aunt,
see what Bedingfield has done to me”. Here C.J. Cockburn held that “ the
statement was not admissible as res gestae because the statement was made after
the incident was over.” This judgment shows the value of time in applying the
“Doctrine of Res Gestae:.
Later, the decision reached in Bedingfield case was reaffirmed by the House of
Lords in the case of R. v. Christie11. This was a case of an indecent assault upon a
young boy. Shortly after the incident, the boy made certain statement to his mother
by which he described the offence and the man who assaulted him. Here, Lord
Atkinson held that “the boy’s statement was so separated by time and
circumstances from the actual commission of the crime that it could not to be said
to be part of the same transaction thus, it was not admissible as res gestae”.
Later, in the case of Vasa Chandra Sekhar v. Ponna Satyanarayana12,
involving murder by a man of his wife and daughter, evidence was offered to show
that the wife's father received a phone call from the father of the accused that his
son had caused the deaths in question. This was held to be not relevant under
Section 6 because there was nothing to show that the communication had taken
place so soon after the crime as the form a part of the same transaction.
2. Contemporaneous statements of Physical Sensation:
Under the second principle, res gestae admits statements in which a person asserts
his contemporaneous physical sensations, such as sickness or pain.
13
This idea was first stated in the case of Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird where the
issue was whether the plaintiff's wife was in good health at the time of taking out a
life insurance policy. It was held that “ the evidence of a friend who had visited the
wife around that time and heard her making statements about her ill health over
the last ten days was admissible”.
3. Statements Should Accompany and Explain Relevant Facts :
Where the doing of an act is a fact in issue, then a statement by the actor which
accompanies and explains the act is admissible as evidence of what is stated.14
These must be contemporaneous with the act and made by a person performing the
relevant act.15 Also, the act must be independently relevant. Thus in the case of R

10
(1879) 14 Cox CC 341.
11
(1914) AC 545, Per Lord Atkinson.
12
2000 Cr LJ 3175 AIR 2000 SC 2138 : (2000) 6 SCC 286.
13
(1805) 6 East 188.
14 nd
I.H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence : 2 Ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell , 2002 at p.587.

5
v. Kearley16, it was the position of the court that hearsay evidence by police
officers receiving calls at an alleged drug dealer's house, of re quests for drugs, was
not admissible on the ground that the telephone calls were not independently
relevant.
4. Declarations of state of mind :
This principle is to the effect that there is no better evidence of a person's past state
of mind than the person's statements at the time, and such statements may be the
only evidence if there are no other actions from which inferences can be drawn."
The important fact that must be kept in mind in this instance is that only where the
state of mind of the declarant is of direct and immediate relevance that such
statements could be admissible."
Illustratively, in the case of R. v. Blastland17, the accused was charged with the
murder of a young boy with whom he admitted to having homosexual relations
early on the evening of the boy's death, though he denied any role in the murder.
The House of Lords held this “evidence inadmissible because there would be
several innocent explanations for the acquisition of that knowledge”

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.
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
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.

RES GESTAE AN EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY

Res Gestae is an exception to the principle that hearsay evidence is no evidence.

15
Howe v. Malkin, (1878) 40 LT 196.
16
(1992) 2 All ER 345
17
[1985] 2 All ER 1095

6
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 the case of R. vs. Foster,18 the witness had only seen a speeding vehicle but not
the accident. The injured person explained him the nature of the accident. He was
allowed to give evidence of what the deceased said, although it was only a derived
knowledge, it is considered is a part of res gestae. Thus, the doctrine of res gestae
constitutes an exception to the principle of hearsay.
In Sukhar v State of U.P.19 the question whether the witness could give evidence
of what the victim told him was raised. It was held that Section 6 is an exception to
general rule that hearsay is not admissible as evidence. But it has to be established
that “the statement was 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.

CRITICISM OF DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

Many criticisms of the doctrine of res gestae sprung up over the years. Foremost
among the criticisms is the contention that both the phrase and doctrine of res
gestae are imprecise and misleading. Also, there is the lingering contention that the
use of res gestae is hopelessly con fusing, given its large number of applications
and the imprecision of its use. A common criticism of the res gestae is that because
specific hearsay exceptions that would have previously fallen under the umbrella
of res gestae have been codified, many courts have concluded that res gestae no
longer serves a useful purpose as an exception to the hearsay rule." One of the
most vocal criticisms of the doctrine of res gestae is the possibility of fabrication of
the statement of the witness, which is in evidence. An instance can be cited with
the American case of People v. Simpson20. Modern criticism of the doctrine is the
possibility of the inaccuracy of a statement sought to form part of res gestae its
maker owing to his or her emotional or psychological state.

18
(1834) 6 C & C 325 ; 172 ER 1261
19
(1999) 9 SCC 507
20
656 N.Y. S.2d 765, 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997).

7
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.
When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is
admissible under Section 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.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS :
nd
1. Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence 100 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 22
Ed., 2018).
th
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence 180 (Lexis Nexis, India, 27 Ed.,
2019).

SITES :
3. “Res Gestae- A Judicial Analysis” available at :
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-500-res-gestae-a-judicial-
analysis.html(last visited on 12/08/20 at 5:00pm).
4. “Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Res Gestae under Indian Evidence Act”
available at: https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/critical-analysis-of-doctrine-
of-res-gestae-under-indian-evidence-act-by-nidhi-garg/ (last visited on 12/08/20
at 5:50pm).
5. “Doctrine of Res Gestae” available at:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2501/Doctrine-of-Res-Gestae.html
(last visited on 12/08/20 at 6:30pm).

************************