Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction i.e.
Res Gestae
Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 6
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.
Illustrations
(a) 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 or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant
fact.
(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed
insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The
occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may
not have been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B 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, though they do not contain the libel
itself.
(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were
delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
This Section speaks of those facts which are relevant because they form a part of the transaction.
They are connected to each other in such a way that they may be referred to by a single legal
name such as a crime, a contract or any other subject in inquiry which may be in evidence.
The principle that is highlighted by the above illustrations is that whenever "transaction" such as
a contract or a crime, is a fact in issue, then evidence can be given of every fact which forms part
of the same transaction. According to Stephen, a transaction is a group of facts so connected
together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong, or any other
subject of inquiry which may be in issue. Although Section 6 does not use the words Res
Gestae, the concept behind this section is often referred to by this term. This pool of facts in
which facts in issue happened is the "Res Gestae" of the facts in issue. Res Gestae is the
surrounding circumstances of the event to be proved.
Facts are so connected with other facts as to form the component of the principle fact and these
facts must not be excluded. But if there is an interval, however, slight it may be, which was
sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of res gastae. Every fact being part
of a transaction with the facts in issue is deemed to be relevant to the facts in issue although it
cannot be actually in issue. If the facts are not part of the same transaction it might be excluded
as hearsay evidence and not justified.
The hearsay evidence cannot be relied upon. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the
hearsay rule and admits to certain exceptions and makes the statement admissible when it is
proved to form part of the same transaction, when it is res gastae. “It is important to bear in mind
that what is adminissible under section 6 are facts which are connected with fact in issue, a part
of the transaction under investigation”—SARKAR
Test for determining facts forming same transaction:
The test for determining whether a fact forms part of the same transaction or another “depends
upon whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose, or as cause and effect or as
probable and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action.” To ascertain whether a
series of facts are part of the same transaction, it is essential to see whether they linked together
to present a continuous whole. It implies a fact which though not in issue, is so connected with
fact in issue “as to form part of same transaction” becomes relevant by itself.
Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act lay down various ways in which the facts are so connected with
the matter in issue that they form the same transaction. If there is an interval, however slight,
which was sufficient for creating scope for fabrication, the statement is not fact of res gestae. The
same transaction consists of both physical and psychological facts.
There are, of course, “four classes of facts which in common life would usually be regarded as
falling within the definition of relevancy are excluded from it by the law of Evidence except in
certain cases”—STEPHEN.
These include:
1. Facts contained in statements of witness not produced in evidence (Sections 32 and 33).
2. Facts contained in the opinion of persons (Section 45).
3. Facts regarding character (Section 53).
4. Facts similar but not specifically connected with other.
The above facts are admissible in exceptional circumstances.
In Vinodkumar Baderbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1999, it was held that the conduct of a man
in arranging to burn his wife and the subsequent burning formed part of the same transaction.
Lord Wilberforce explained the principle of res gestae in Rattan v. Reginam, 1971. In this case, a
man who was prosecuted for the murder of his wife claimed that the gun by which she was killed
went off accidentally. However, the fact that the wife had made a telephone call just before she
died asking for the police and giving her address was held to be relevant as being part of the
same transaction as the victim of an accident would not have asked for the police even before the
accident had occurred.
