Abstract- Through this short article the author wants to put forward the various aspects of the doctrine of Res gestae as found under section 6 of The Indian Evidence Act,1872. The term has Latin origin and it means things done or “actus”. However this meaning has underwent a metamorphosis and now it encompasses various aspects under it. The author has tried to explore the scope and ambit of this theory in concise form highlighting the most essential and important case laws.

               The doctrine of Res gestae is portrayed under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the following words-
“Facts which though not in issue are so connected with the facts in issue so as to form a part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and  place or at different times and places" – Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
                 Res gestae, originally was used by the Romans to mean acts done or actus. The English and American writers described it as facts that form the same transaction. Res gestae are those facts which automatically or naturally form a part of the same transaction.They are the acts talking for themselves. These facts become relevant due to their association with main transaction which itself is a relevant fact in the nature of fact in issue. Circumstantial facts are admitted as forming a part of res gestae i.e. it being a part of original proof of what has taken place. Statements may also accompany physical happenings like gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amounts to res gestae.

Few Illustrations-
# The cry of an in injured or wounded person.
# The cry of witness on seeing a murder happening
# The sound of a bullet being shot.
# The cry for help by the person being attacked.
# Gestures made by the person dying etc

The statements made or acts done has to be spontaneous and simultaneous to the main transaction. They may be made or done before or after the main transaction, but the time gap has to be very little so as to render it to be a res gestae i.e. it has to be done or made immediately before, or during or immediately after the occurrence of the main transaction. Where time gap is enough for fabrication or concoction, then statement or act shall not fall under section 6.

According to Section 6 the facts forming a part of the same transaction may or may not occur at the same place or same time. For example in the case of
Ratten V. Queen[1] the victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator could connect her to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead body from her house from where the call was made and the time of death and the time of phone call was almost the same. The call made to the police came under the purview of section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband’s defence that he accidentally fired his wife.

Few case laws covering various aspects of the principle of res gestae as envisaged under section 6-
1. The act may not have occurred at the same place - Ratten V. Queen

2. The time gap should be very little OR contemporaneous so that there is no time to fabricate or make up a story.
Sukhar V. State of UP[2] - the accused in this case shot the victim when he raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm the witness reached almost at the same time when the victim told that the accused at shot him. The victim did not die. The accused was charged with section 307 IPC,1860 (punishment for attempt to murder). However during the trial the victim died for some other cause. Despite being hearsay evidence, the statement of the witness was held to be admissible as it formed a part of the same transaction. The event of the victim being shot and the witness being told by the victim about the accused was contemporaneous.

3. Act of witness during the same time and same place where the offence was committed-
Sawal Das V. State of Bihar.[3] - The cry of the children from the house when their mother was being killed by their father became a part of the same transaction and therefore fell under section 6 and became admissible as valid evidence.

4. Gestures made by the victim when dying-
Queen V. Abdullah.[4]- The gesture made by the victim who was dying, that the accused had killed her came under the purview of res gestae.

5. When FIR becomes Res gestae- Shyam Nandan Singh V. State of Bihar[5] - An FIR was lodged soon after the incident by persons who witnessed it. It was held to be a part of the happening so it came under the purview of section 6.

Therefore we can see that what originally started by the Romans 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. All these are said to form a part of the same transaction and thereby admissible by virtue of doctrine of res gestae u/s 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 1872.

Bibliography
Batuk Lal , The Law of Evidence(2015) ISBN-13:978-9384852214
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Rattan Lal & Dhiraj Lal , “The Law of Evidence”, 20th Nagpur : Wadhwa & Company, 2004
Sarkar M.C. and S.C. Sarkar, “Law of Evidence”, 16 th Ed., Nagpur: Wadhwa & Company, 2007
Singh, Avtar, “Principles of Law of Evidence”, 14th Ed., Allahabad: Central Law Publication, 2004.

End-Notes
[1] 1972] A.C. 378, [1971] UKPC 23, [1971] 3 All ER 801, (1972) 56 Cr App R 18, [1971] 3 WLR 930
[2] (1999) 9 SCC 507
[3] 1974 AIR 778, 1974 SCR (3)74
[4] (1885) ILR 7 All 385
[5] 1991 (39) BLJR 1298, 1991 Cri LJ 3350