DOCTRINE OF RES GESTESUBMITTED TO: Mr. Jagdish Chandra ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR BY: Manu Kharra & Abhishek Barwal REG NO. 13A064, 13A004 BSC-LLB (H) Table of Contents INTRODUCTION –......................................................................................................... 3 SECCTION 6 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT –.........................................................................4 TRANSACTION –........................................................................................................... 8 BYSTANDERS –.......................................................................................................... 10 TAPE RECORDER –..................................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT SHOWING MOTIVE AND INTENTION –.....................................................11 CONTEMPORANITY AND SPONTANEITY –...................................................................13 CRITIQUE OF EXCITED UTTERANCE –.........................................................................14 185TH REPORT OF THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA –..............................................16 HEARSAY AND RES GESTAE –.................................................................................... 19 CONCLUSION –.......................................................................................................... 20 So. S. 9 and14. such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. and statements made to . direct evidence of state of mind. are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. 7. but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence. whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places” The principal of law embodied in S. Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. 6 states. Res gestae also hired the hearsay exceptions for present-sense impressions. must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. such as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible. it is pertinent to examine what is transaction. there is not much case law on this section. it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. 8.” and from that translation springs its conceptualization both as an independent hearsay exception and as a shorthand reference to intrinsic evidence of a singular transaction or event. Res gestae include elements that fall outside the modern hearsay definition altogether. so-called “verbal acts. excited utterances. S. The rules formulated in s. Facts which may be proved. So. This section is used by the lawyers as a last resort so. are relevant. 6 is expounded and illustrated in S.INTRODUCTION – Res gestae translates from Latin as “things done. as part of res gestae. 5 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given of fact in issue and relevant fact described under S. excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the “things done”) and hence admissible despite the hearsay rule.” verbal parts of acts. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly any time for concoction. 6 to S. “Facts which. and certain non-verbal conduct. though not in issue. Because excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the excitement flows from the event.6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. when does it start and when does it ends.55. If any fact fails to link itself with the main transaction. ) The principle underlying Sec. In restricted meaning Res Gestae imports the conception of action by some person producing the effects for which the liability is sought to be enforced in action. Exclamations which are so spontaneous as to belie concoction. when does it start and when does it ends. It is necessary therefore.” Res Gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. it is pertinent to examine what is a transaction. So. In the restricted sense it means world’s happening out of which the right or liability in question arises.html .in/2013/01/doctrine-of-resgestae_19. Apparently the phrase is well established in the Law of Evidence. Statements which can be admitted into evidence as Res Gestae fall into three headings1. To be clear. arises. and 3. by the witness who will later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. to understand what it really means. necessarily. Statements which are evidence as to someone's state of mind. they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (i. “the subject matter”. 2.blogspot. “Res Gestae” of any case properly consists of that portion of actual world’s happenings out of the right or liability. of the Indian Evidence Act.e.physicians. This phrase means simply a transaction. “thing done”. spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event. or explain a physical act. (In some jurisdictions the Res Gestae exception has also been used to admit police sketches. complained or asserted in the proceeding. 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 is unattainable. That has been used in two senses. Words or phrases which either form part of.6. in the restricted sense “facts which constitute the Res Gestae must be such as so connected with the very transaction or fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it.1 SECCTION 6 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT – Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against Hearsay evidence. 1932 the following is sometimes termed as Res Gestae. If any fact fails to link itself with the 1 “Doctrine of Res Gestae”via http://engllb. Res Gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally. are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. including herein what may be said by the suffering party.” It is to be noted that sections 7. though not in issue. Each case in criminal law should be judged according to its own merit. While. whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. with reference to it. but such facts must ‘form part of the same transaction. A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name. The principal act charged as an offence against the accused from its inception to its consummation and whatever may be said by either of the parties during the continuance of the transaction. 1932 also a part of this rule. “facts which. The question is whether they do form part or are too remote to be considered really part of the transaction before the Court.8. 6 lies in its vagueness. though in absence of the accused during the continuance of the action or the latter. together with the words accompanying such act or acts.main transaction. If any statement is made under the stress of excitement than such statement form part of the same transaction and is admissible before the court of law. form part of the principal transaction and may be given in evidence as part of Res Gestae of it. after all action on the part of wrong-doer has ceased and some time has elapsed do not form part of Res Gestae and should be excluded. Whatever act or series of acts constitute. or a series of connected physical acts.’ If facts form part of the transaction which is the subject of enquiry. When it is proved that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible under sec. Every fact which is part of the same transaction as the fact in issue is deemed to be relevant to the fact in issue although it may not be . Roughly.e. 1872 states that. the things done (including words spoken) in the course of a transaction]. as a crime a contract.15. are relevant. a transaction may be described as any physical act. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. on the other hand. This section admits those facts the admissibility of which comes under the technical expression Res Gestae [i. manifestly evidence of them ought not to be excluded.. it fails to be a Res Gestae and hence inadmissible. The strength of sec. or in point of time immediately accompany and terminate in. a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.32 52-55 and others of the Indian Evidence Act. statements made by the complaining party. 6 but whether it is reliable or not depends on the discretion of the Judge. It should never be mentioned. in the present state of the law. a matters incidental to a main fact and explanatory of it. The Hearsay Rule at Work: Has it Been Abolished De Facto by Judicial Decision?. 3 Dean Wigmore comments. L. 132 (describing phrase res gestae as inexact and indefinite in its scope”). Philip Pattenden. and although if it were not part of the same transaction it might be excluded as hearsay. Cambridge. p. but even positively harmful. 3 Translation provided by Dr. or liberally speaking. the facts of the transaction explanatory of an act or showing a motive for acting. they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (i. Of Studies in Classic. Res Gestae. 12 Wash.e..com/article/l185- . Dir.”4 Res gestae is an exception to the rule against Hearsay evidence.actually in issue. Peterhouse. spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event. not only entirely useless. 4 Edmund M.What Is It?. Hearsay . Accessed at http://www. A literal translation means “something deliberately undertaken or done”2 Few areas of the common law of hearsay are in greater dispute than the doctrine of res gestae. Morgan. as a vicious element in our legal phraseology.. Res gestae has no exact English translation. 76 Minn. Rev. 4 (1937) . 1.legalserviceindia. “The phrase res gestae is. Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally. by the witness who will later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility5. Rev. Res gestae has been defined as “Things done. 5 Barik Mita. including acts and words which are so closely connected with a main fact as will constitute a part of it. 473. L. 475 (1992). It ought therefore wholly to be repudiated. and without a knowledge of which the main fact might not be properly 2 See Eleanor Swift. pp. word spoken. 7 In other words. the] whole of the transaction under investigation and every part of it. so closely connected to occurrence or event in both time and substance as to be a part of the happening. Res gestae also encompassed “those circumstances which are the automatic and undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act. and gestures made.T Ltd. .. which may be separated from act by lapse of time more or less appreciable. all . and contemporaneous with it and serve to illustrate its character or these circumstance which are the automatic and undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and are admissible when illustrative of such act.9 it was observed that the statement of law in section 6 of the evidence act is usually known as Res Gestae.1932)). The literal meaning of the word ‘res’ is “everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object.W. things or things happened . 1990) (citing McClory vs Schneider. facts and declaration which grow out of the main fact. res gestae meant nothing more than the modern words “same transaction or occurrence” and had something to do with relevancy. and which are admissible when illustrative of such act. even speaking for themselves though the instinctive words and acts of participants not the words and acts of participants when narrating the events. subject matter or status” 10 Res Gestae has been described as a term of protean importance and that there have been many definitions of the term. . . 51 S. 1998 INDLAW GUJ 22 7 Black’s Law Dictionary 1305 (6th ed. thoughts expressed. 9 1956 INDLAW CAL 105 10 Escorts Farms Ltd vs Commissioner Kumaon Division 2004 INDLAW SC 1157 .[That is. 741 (Tex. . . .I. 8 Ibid. . . W. res gestae meant “things done .”6 According to Black’s Dictionary. .understood.”8 In Babulal vs.2d 738. 6 Vinodkumar Baderbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat. Civ. the circumstances. and community of purpose or design. and derive some degree of credit from it. Vol. cited in Jones Ev s 358. and are contemporary with. bystanders etc. 15 But the key 11 Julius Stone.12 It would be little short of miraculous if one single doctrine of Res Gestae would suffice for every situation. 14 R vs Ring A 1929 B 296. is proximity of time. The rule as to admissibility of evidence known as the Res Gestae rule has been declared to be incapable of any precise definition and it has been applied to so many different and unrelated situations that it has been said that the difficulty of formulating a description of Res Gestae which will serve all circumstances seems insurmountable. 66 12 31 A CJS 978 13 Lund vs inhabitants &c. TRANSACTION – A transaction. It include both immediate cause and effect of an act or event. as a crime. connected with it. a contract. 55 The Law Quarterly Review.13 Section 6 uses words like transaction. a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. p. and also its collection of relevant circumstances. and only such declarations are admissible which grow out of the principal transaction and serve to illustrate its character. as the term used in this section is defined by a single name. according to the nature and character of the transaction. the other necessary antecedents of it occurrence. Res Gesta Raegitata. pace and cause and effect.No evidential problem is as shrouded in doubt and confusion 11as is Res Gestae. It is important to understand the implications of these words to know the scope of this section. at a reasonable distance of the time. 9 Cush (Mass) 36. 15 Banga Ch vs Annada 35 CLJ 527 .14 A fine working test of deciding what transaction is. but may extend over a long or shorter period. unity or proximity of place. There must be a main or principal fact or transaction. The main transaction is not necessarily confined to a particular point of time. continuity of actions. test must be continuity of action and community of purpose. The primary offence and the offence of destroying evidence of the primary offence may in certain circumstances be parts of same transaction.P 1983 INDLAW AP 75 18 Ganesh vs R. 19 Amritala vs R 42 C 957.21 To form a particular statement as a part of the same transaction. the transaction ends with the intervention of a third party and such acts or admissible cannot be made admissible under sec. But certain transaction like murder extends over a longer period of time.19 If any statement is a reaction to the situation than it forms part of the same transaction but if it is a response to the question. and yet two facts separated by a vast distance of time and lace may be part of the same transaction. A 1931 P 52.20 Two fact occurring at the same time and place may have no connection between them. 20 Hari vs State of U. declaration etc. unity or proximity of place. 157 as corroborative evidence but not under S. A transaction may constitute a single incident occupying a few moments or it may be spread over a variety of acts. All these fact are relevant only when they are connected by proximity of time. accompany and tend to explain or qualify the fact in issue. All these constitute incidents. Statement made after some times may be admissible under S.6 of the Indian evidence act.P 183 Cri LJ NOC 62(All) . When can a transaction be said to end and when it begins. the proximity of the police station and the continuity of action17. utterance must be simultaneous 16 R vs Loclay 17 Bandela Nagaraju vs State of A.16 The condition for admissibility of a statement made by a person who was at the scene of occurrence is the proximity of time. continuity of action and community of purpose or design. The expression suggests not necessarily proximity of time so much as continuity of action and purpose. which though not strictly constituting a fact in issue. It ends the moment the buyer hands the money to the shopkeeper and the shopkeeper hands the pen to the buyer. 18 Buying a pen from the shop is also a transaction. 6. depends on the fact and circumstances of each case. An entirely separate and disconnected offence is not admissible merely because it occurred at or about the same time as the res gestae of the offence on Trail. what happened at the subsequent police investigation of the complaint forms no part of the res gesate. it cannot be said that there was a long interval so as to give an opportunity for any fabrication and therefore. or which afforded an 21 Venkatesan vs State 1997 INDLAW MAD 104 22 Krishnaram vs S. 25 Peoples vs Lane.6.25 Facts which are the occasion. Two distinct offences may be so inseparable connected that the proof of one necessarily involves proving the other. . it was admissible under s. cause or effect. If there is a long time gap.with the incident or soon after it so as to make it reasonably certain that the speaker is still under stress of excitement in respect of the transaction in question. of relevant facts. 100 California 379.22 Transaction also ends with a time gap. Whatever is said by the informant in the F. Evidence as to other offences by the accused would be relevant and admissible if there is a nexus between the offence charged and the other offences or the two acts form part of the same transaction so as to fall within S. 22 Statement by a victim shortly after he sustained injuries that the accused inflicted them is admissible under S.I.6. immediate or otherwise. it can be said that the response of the victim is concocted or it is influenced by his/her personal feelings. or which constitute the state of things under which they happened. or facts in issue.R or to other witness after the occurrence forms part of the same transaction?23 When the offence under trail is filing false complaint. 24Evidence which is connected with the principal subject matters of the charges as parts of one and the same transaction is relevant. A 1964 As 53 23 Shyam Nandan Singh vs State of Bihar 1991 INDLAW PAT 12. 6. evidence proving it cannot be excluded because it also proves the other. 24 Venkatasubbiah vs R 48 M 640. and in such a case on a prosecution for one. Where the accused made a statement to the deceased’s brother relating to the motive and commission of the offence after half an hour of the incident. 6 means all the person present at the time of incident. The manner and mode of its proof and its use in a trial is a matter of detail. State27. Those persons who came immediately after the murder and were informed by the eye-witnesses as to who the two accused has been. State of Karnataka. his neighbours run to the spot within minutes and he told them the names of the assailants who had shot at him and his wife. So. declaration must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact in issue and must tend to illustrate ad explain it. their evidence is relevant. the place where the murder took place was occupied by a number of persons apart from the deceased and the eyewitnesses. are relevant26. A contemporaneous tape recorded of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7. It may 26 Annasuyamma vs. their deposition was judged to fall within the ambit of Section 6. It can be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape recorded statements. his statement to them was relevant under this section 6. BYSTANDERS – The term bystanders used in sec. Where on hearing sounds of gunshots from the house of the victim. Where the tape recorded conversation carried music before and after the recorded conversation and the same could not be explained the court said that the only plausible explanation was that the tape was tampered. 2002 INDLAW KAR 99 27 AIR 1955 All 328 28 Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar 1996 INDLAW SC 1562 . In Mahedra Pal vs. It can be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape recorded statements.28 TAPE RECORDER – A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 but such evidence must be received with caution. Where a number of persons came to the spot immediately after a murder and was told by the eye witnesses who the two culprits had been.opportunity for their occurrence or transaction. the identification of the taped voices is a crucial and matter and indeed such proper identification is a sine-qua-non for the use of the earlier tape recording. so that his utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event. thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the declaring was still dominated by the event. In order for the statement to be sufficiently ‘spontaneous’ it must be so closely associated with the event which has excited the statement. providing that the statement was made in conditions of approximate but not exact contemporaneity. As to the possibility of report on the facts narrated in the statement if only the ordinary fallibility of human recollection is relied on. a comparison of the same becomes inevitable and proper identification of the voices must be proved by a competent witness. Quite apart from the time factor.29 If the exited utterance is relevant. unreported. Thus the judge must be satisfied that the event. the statement will be admissible if the answer to the second question is also yes. was still operative. this goes to weight to be attached to and not the admissibility of the statement and is therefore a matter of jury.also be legitimately used for the purpose of shaking the credit of a witness. 30 otherwise the statement is 29 R vs Pennel 30 R vs West. in order to satisfy him that the event was as unusual or starting or fanatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim. there may be special feature in case. CA . TEST FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER RES-GESTAE – The primary question which the judge must ask oneself is-can the possibility of concoction or distortion is disregarded? To answer that question the judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular statement was made. Where the voice is denied by the alleged maker thereof. For the use an earlier tape recorded statement. which provided the trigger mechanism for the statement. and the answer to the other question is no. which relate to the possibility of concoction or distortion. In such a situation the judge would be entitled to conclude that the involvement or the pressure of the event would exclude the possibility of concoction or distortion. it was held that the statement made by the police officer that he is going to meet Buckley in course of his duty is admissible as there is a likelihood that a police officer who says he has to meet someone in course of his duty will do just that. The issue was. 34 Rosmund Reay. whether there was a meeting with Wainwright and whether the pregnant girl performed the abortion herself. is very different matter to investigating what someone says he is going to do in order to decide whether he carried out his stated intention. Evidence may be given of the statements which accompany conduct in order to define the motive behind that conduct. 26.137. In Thomson case33. 3rd ed. in either event they did not accompany and define the fact in issue 34. A statement may be spontaneous even though made in response to questioning. a girl said that she intended to perform an abortion on herself. 31 R vs Smartt 2004 EWCA Crim 2072. Both statements were held to be inadmissible because the diclarent intention was not directly relevant. p. The statement of intention may or may not been carried out. 35 1873 13 Cox CC 293 . 2001.inadmissible. 32 1875 13 Cox CC 171 33 1912 3 KB 19. whereas the intentions asserted by the girls in the above mention case may or may not have been carried out. respectively. a girl left home telling her mother that she was going to visit Wainwright. Textbook Evidence. where his intention is in issue. In Wainwright case32. What someone says.31 STATEMENT SHOWING MOTIVE AND INTENTION – A person’s statement that he intends to do something in the future is not admissible as evidence that he did that thing. Statements which are not contemporaneous with an act cannot define the motive with which it was done because the declarant may change his mind between the declaration and the act. but in Buckley case35. or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact. collision or the like. (3) previous or subsequent conduct of any party or of any agent to any party to any suit or proceeding. are relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. preparation and conduct.2d 267. The declaration therefore may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence. CONTEMPORANITY AND SPONTANEITY – The excited utterance exception admits hearsay statements made while the declarant was under the stress or excitement of a particularly startling event. under certain external circumstances of 36 Carroll vs Guffey. (2) a fact which constitute or shows preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.”36 Debate over the admissibility of excited utterances centers on the timing between the statement and the cause of the excitement.Sec. requiring simultaneity between the underlying event and the descriptive statement. Statements made by the observers of events may be admissible as part of the res gestae if they were a spontaneous consequence of the event. This general principle is based on the experience that. It lays down that (1) a fact which shows or constitutes a motive for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. 156 N. in reference to such suit or proceedings. committed it or not. it carries with it inherently a degree of credibility and will be admissible because of its spontaneous nature. As courts and commentators explained “Where a remark is made spontaneously and concurrently with an affray. 270 Ill. providing it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continues. 8 deals with the relevancy of motive.E. and hence renders such out-of-court statements sufficiently reliable. to virtually abandoning a temporal requirement between the event and the statement. In determining the fact whether a man charged with an offence. App. Over the course of two centuries. it is important to know whether previous to the act he made certain preparations to do the act. the excited utterance doctrine has evolved from the concept of res gestae. 1959 . on the theory that such stress or excitement precludes the kind of reflection necessary for the declarant to fabricate. Ct. The state of excitement can continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. Wigmore even hinted that such evidence is superior to in-court testimony because of its spontaneity and closeness to the event. witnesses may initially suppress unpleasant memories. 38 Ibid . [47]It was asserted that the difference in reaction time between deceptive and sincere responses is negligible. calmer times. Wigmore’s notion that a person would not have time to think up a lie before making an excited utterance in response to a startling event is not borne out by psychological research. It was noted hear that the central features of unpleasant events may be better remembered than neutral events. Chadbourn ed.37 The witness’ state of nervous tension was of utmost importance in Wigmore’s analysis. The time required to craft a lie is slight--sometimes only a matter of seconds.38 CRITIQUE OF EXCITED UTTERANCE – Despite its intuitive appeal. a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control. which only emerge in later. The excited utterance exception. neither thoughts of “self-interest” nor other “reasoned reflection” arise. which tolerates more than a thirtyminute gap between the event and the utterance. some psychological data indicate that. because the witness’ ability to recall will not be at its best so near in time to the traumatic event. Additionally. as a self-protective device. the utterance is “particularly trustworthy” and may be admitted despite its hearsay character. allows more than sufficient time for planning a false report. 37 See John Henry Wigmore. so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.physical shock. Therefore. Evidence in Trials at the Common Law p.. According to Wigmore. 1362 (James H. Psychological studies support this observation and indicate that the difference between the time of cognition and the time when the declarant may begin to fabricate is so small that it is often impossible to measure without instruments. but such enhanced memory will occur after a lapse of time.” During this short time. Such data argue directly against application of the excited utterance exception. 1978). this “immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses” lasts for a “brief period. A Case Study of Eyewitness Memory of a Crime. 112 Psychol. First. 291. 284 (1992). Applied Psychol.40 Whereas real-life studies concerning traumatic events tend to show that these events are well preserved in memory. These gaps in time are simply too great to meet the original rationale of the excited utterance exception or the contemporaneousness requirement of res gestae. Emotional Stress and Eyewitness Memory: A Critical Review. some have argued that stress naturally leads to confusion and can result in an inaccurate recollection of events. many simulation studies claim to show that traumatic events are poorly retained. Bull.” increasing the likelihood of “reporting non facts. 39 C. the role an individual plays in a traumatic situation may also influence his or her memory. 299-300 (1986) 40 Sven-Ake Christianson. 71 J. neither the duration of the declarant’s stress nor a lapse in time between the event and the statement may determine whether a person can fabricate a remark. ten studies “concluded that arousal caused by an event either had no effect on subsequent recall or increased accuracy” while eleven other studies “demonstrated a negative effect of event arousal on memory”39 Psychological studies reach inconsistent results on the issue of whether stress is a guarantor of the truthfulness of a statement.” Finally. Supreme courts have routinely admitted statements made at a wide range of times after such events have occurred. Although academics and psychologists may conflict on the true effect that traumatic events have on perception and memory.Professor Wigmore’s description of stress as the guarantor of truthfulness may not be wellfounded. if an observer does not accurately remember the events due to stress. p. he is likely to draw “inferences to fill in memory gaps. Cutshall.52 noting that in a recent review of literature relating memory to stress.286 . Yuille & Judith L.51 Moreover.” Further. In India. estoppel. Mahabir Prasad41. the Commission suggested important changes. namely. such as the doctrine of Res Gestae. 10. declarations or writings by one co-conspirator “whether it was said. adhered to the wider meaning of sec.185TH REPORT OF THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA – Law Commission in its report has observed that certain well settled principles in the Act.. res judicata etc. Emperor. which was afterward confirmed by the Supreme Court in various cases. The court in this case however rejected to treat 41 AIR 1956 Punjab 173. 10 and observed that there were five conditions for the applicability of sec. . The 69th Report concluded that there was a significant difference in this regard between the Indian position and the English law but because of the decision of Mirza Akbar vs. Subba Rao J as he then was. A new section was proposed. covered actions. done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it”. Looking to these recommendations it can be said that the commission accepted the rule but wanted some improvements to be made. It was held that the words were “designedly used to give a wider scope”. as enunciated in the Act were very well playing the part and thus need not be interfered with. the first case in which question of admissibility of taperecorded conversation came for consideration is Rupchand v. Bhagwan Swaroop v.’It has further observed that – Seeking to resolve the controversy under section 10 of the Act as to admission of evidence in case of conspiracy. State of Maharashtra. But in another ruling. a tape recorder was in operation. The Apex Court after examining the entire issue in the light of various judgments laid down the following principles: a) The contemporaneous conversation. who is endeavoring to shake the credit of a witness by use of former incoherent statement. The Apex Court in Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The Court held there is no rule of evidence. a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. The imprint on the magnetic tape is direct effect of the appropriate sounds. constituted part of res-gestae and is relevant and admissible under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. considered various aspects of the matter relating to admissibility of tape recoded conversation. or from producing the said tape recorder in support of the assertion that a certain statement was made in his presence. This was a case relating to an offence under section 165-A of Indian Penal Code and at the occasion of the Investigating Agency. a five judges bench of Apex Court considered the problem and evidently propounded that tape recorded talks are admissible in evidence and simple fact that such type of evidence can be easily tampered which certainly could not be a ground to discard such evidence as inadmissible or refuse to consider it. State of Maharashtra43. Like a photograph of a relevant incident. which could not be tempered with. from deposing that while he was engaged in conversation with the witness.tape-recorded conversation as writing within the purview of section 3 (65) of the General Clauses Act but allowed the same to be used under section 155(3) of the Evidence Act as prior statement to shake the credit of witness. 42 AIR 1964 SC 72 43 AIR 1968 SC147 . Pratap Singh v. who wanted to bribe. and complainant was tape recorded. In S. which prevents a party. which was tape recorded. because there are few documents and possibly no portion of evidence. the talk between accused. In this case the tape record of the conversation was admitted in evidence to support the evidence of witnesses who had stated that such a conversation has taken place. State of Punjab42. In this landmark judgment. the court emphatically laid down in unambiguous terms that the process of tape recording offers an exact method of storing and afterward reproducing sounds. The prosecution wanted to use this tape recorded conversation as evidence against accused and it was argued that the same is hit by section 162 CrPC as well as article 20(3) of the constitution. Giri44. Referring to the scheme of law as laid down in Rama Reddy’s case 46 a three judges bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. The Supreme Court also made it clear that such transcripts can be used by a 44 AIR 1971 SC 1162. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta. Brijmohan Ramdas Meht a the Supreme Court considered the importance and use of such transcripts and expressed the view that transcript could be used to explain what the transcriber has found recorded there at the time of transcription and the evidence of the makers of the transcripts is surely corroborative because it goes to verify what the tape record contained. In this case the court meant that when a court allows a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and authentic. 45 AIR 1973 SC 157 46 Supra . propounded that the use of tape recorded conversation was not restricted to purpose of corroboration and contradiction only. contained a particular statement there could be no more direct or better evidence of it than its tape recorded.b) The contemporaneous tape record of a relevant dialogue is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. assuming its legitimacy to be duly established. Giving an illustration. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra 45. Sri Rama Reddy v. be used as substantive evidence. the court held that like any document the tape record itself was primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and picked up by the receiver. but when accordingly proved by reasonable evidence of what was found recorded and of absence of tampering. it could subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act. The issue whether such evidence is primary and direct was dealt by the Apex Court in N.V. This was reiterated by the Apex Court in R.K. V. Transcript: The importance of having a transcript of the tape-recorded dialogue cannot be under estimated because the same guarantees that the recording was not tampered subsequently. the Court pointed out that when it was uncertain or in issue whether a person’s dialogue on a particular occasion. hearsay evidence becomes admissible but for the purpose of bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of sec 6 what is required to be established is it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval to allow any fabrication. But his wife or any other person who heard of the incidence from him cannot give evidence because such evidence constitute hearsay evidence. where a person who has witnessed an accident can give evidence about it. to prove the truth of the matter asserted. made in court. .witness to revive his memory under section 159 of the Evidence Act and their contents can be brought on record by direct oral evidence in the way prescribed by section 160 of Evidence Act. Section 6 is an exception to the general rule whereunder. hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while confirming at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example. Here. Thus the doctrine of res gestae constitutes as one of the exception to the rule of hearsay evidence is no evidence. HEARSAY AND RES GESTAE – Hearsay is an out of court statement. the evidence is admissible as original evidence distinct from hearsay evidence as it forms a part of the same transaction. This evidence can be allowed provided it form part of the transaction of the accident. Hearsay evidence is the statement given by a person who has not himself observed the happening of a transaction but has only heard of it from others. In other words. Any statement which was made after a long time gap and which was not a effect to the event is not admissible under sec. because there was satisfactory proof that the victim was still under the anxiety of excitement and so whatever was said was as a reaction to the event. The objective of law makers was to avoid injustice. 6 but whether it is dependable or not is the discretion of the . The power of sec. That is why Indian courts have always considered the test of “continuity of the transaction”. where cases are rejected due to lack of evidence.157 as corroborative evidence. When it is established that the evidence forms part of the same transaction it is admissible under sec. Court has always minded that this doctrine should never be stretched to an unlimited extends. It varies from case to case. Each and every case in criminal law should be judged according to its own merit. But courts have allowed certain statement which was spoken after a long time gap from the incidence of the transaction. 6 it can be admissible under sec. The word transaction used in this section is not different.6 of the evidence act. If any statement is not admissible under sec. 6 lies in its vagueness.CONCLUSION – Generally evidence is brought under resgestae when it cannot be brought under any other section of Indian evidence Act. in/2011/12/res-gestae-principle-exception-to. 2. Hyderabad: S. 5.kostrolaw.3. 2012 Lal.Judge.R.2007. Law of Evidence.3366/elr.html o http://www. V.in/2008/02/res-gestae-die-hard-doctrine. 3. Gurgaon: Lexis-Nexis. The Law of Evidence. The Law of Evidence.Law of Evidence. S. Batuk. M.kostrolaw.euppublishing.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/ o http://www. 2011 Monir. Allahabad: Central Law Agency. REFRRENCES – 1.blogspot. 4.11.blogspot. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.com/doi/abs/10. Asian Law House.Georgia & Company.com/NJFamilyIssues/2011/06/13/the-common-law-doctrine-of-res-gestae/ o http://www.379 . Ratanlal. Dhirajlal. 2007 Myneni. 2006 Krishnamachari. The Law of Evidence. 2008 Internet Sources o http://remediallawdoctrines.html o http://hawaiiopinions. com/sol3/papers.o http://www.html o http://papers.ssrn.legalserviceindia.com/article/l185-Res-Gestae.cfm?abstract_id=1299111 .