Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Project On Res Gestae
A Project On Res Gestae
A Project On Res Gestae
ON RES
GESTAE
Submitted to
Mr. Deevanshu Shrivastav
Asst. Professor ,
School of Law
Submitted by:
Nikhilesh Mallick
2015BBLH024
What is Res
Gestae?
1. Res gestae literally means things done. It
refers to all facts so connected with a fact in
issue, and are incidental to it. they are
admissible as truth of its contents although
they may be hearsay, or self serving statement
and inadmissible in evidence.
2. The res gestae principle is embodied
in Section 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Evidence
Act 1950. The statement in order to constitute
res gestae can be made by the parties to the
transaction or even by bystanders.
3. However, the statement should have been
made at or about the same time the act was
done. Contemporaniety or spontaniety must be
shown before the statement is made
admissible.
4. For example, A is accused of murder of B by
assaulting him. Whatever was said by A or B
or bystanders at the time of assault or shortly
or after it, may be relevant as it forms part of
the whole transaction.
Another example of
Res Gestae.....
1. The words must explain "or qualify"; for example, the act
of handing over or receiving money can be construed either
as a loan, a gift or a repayment.
2. The statement must have been made contemporaneously
(simultaneous, concurrent, happening during the same
period of time) with the act, i.e., made either during, or
immediately before or after its occurrence, but not at Such
interval (gap) as to allow of fabrication, or to reduce them
to mere narrative (story or tale) of a past event. Case laws,
however, allow the admissibility of declarations made not
exactly at the time of the commission of the events which
excited them, so long as they were closely connected to the
events and made spontaneously.
Eg. The culprit had big eyes, big ears and by teeth Satistically the chance of
being anyone other than the defendant is only one in 12 million.
Res Gestae: Its
Application In
England
The Privy Council held that the telephonist's evidence was not
hearsay and was properly admitted because of its relevance to
the issues. The Privy Council did however consider the fact
that the evidence, in a way, did contain a hearsay element,
namely, that the words as used by the wife did involve an
assertion of the truth of the fact that she was being attacked by
her husband.