Doctrine of Res Gestae || When such statement cannot be considered to be part of Same Transactions

Doctrine of Res Gestae || When such statement cannot be considered to be part of Same Transactions

Res Gestae is taken from Latin word which means “things done”. The term Res gestae literally means Related facts such facts which form part of a transaction are called Res gestae. The main object of section 6 of evidence act is to make knowable or to clear more the evidence of the facts of the issues so as to reach at correct conclusion.

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction

As per Section 6 of Indian evidence act 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.

According to Stephens – transaction is group of those acts or facts which combine with each other so that they are known by the same legal name, like-crime, breach of contract, etc.

Examples– A is accused of murder of B with a sword. Whatever was said or done by A or B by-standers at the attack or shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction and is relevant.

Mohan is accused of the murder of Sohan by beating him. Whatever was said or done by Mohan or Sohan 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.

Mohan sues Sohan for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts in this section, though they do not contain the libel itself.

The question is, whether certain goods ordered from Mohan were delivered to Sohan. The goods were delivered to (Sohan) several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact in this section.

When such statement cannot be considered to be part of Same Transactions

Case study –

Jantela V.Rao Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1996 S.C. 2791)- in this case a bus has been burnt and several people have been injured. They were sent to hospital and their statement was recorded by magistrate. This statement cannot be considered to be part of same transaction, because they were made a long time after the incident.

V.chandra Shekhar Rao versus P.Satya Naraian (AIR 2000 S.C. 2138)-it has been stated by the supreme court that the telephone call made to the husband of deceased by the father of accused that murder has been done by his son, is not the part of same transaction.