Doctrine of Res Gestae: a Critical Analysis
Abstract
The Doctrine of Res Gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and, the doctrine is an exception to the hearsay clause, however, in a court of law, hearsay testimony is not admissible. It is critical to analyze what constitutes a transaction, where it starts and ends, and it is not a res gestae if the given facts are unable to connect themselves to the prime transaction resulting in inadmissibility. If a comment is made under the burden of excitement, then it is considered admissible in the eyes of the court because it's all part of the same transaction. The ambiguity of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 gives it the power. Section 6 is admissible only if the testimony is established to be part of the same transaction, however, the Court must determine if it is valid or not.
References
Id.
Eleanor Swift, The Hearsay Rule at Work: Has it Been Abolished De Facto by Judicial Decision? 76 Minn. L. Rev. 473, (1992)
Thompson v. Trevanion, 1693 Skin 402
Ambrose v. Clendon, Rep. Temp. Hardw. 267
Vol.25., Thomas Jones Howells, Howells State trials, 444 (1794)
Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird., (1805) 6 East 188
R v. Bedingfield., [1879]14 Cox C.C. 341
Ratten v.R., [1972] AC 378
Ratten v Queen., (1887) 18 QBD 537
Translation provided by Dr. Philip Pattenden, Dir. Of Studies in Classic, Peterhouse, Cambridge.
Vinod kumar Baderbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1998 INDLAW GUJ 22
Babulal Choukhani v. Western India Theaters Ltd.,1956 INDLAW CAL 105
Escorts Farms Ltd., v. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division. 2004 INDLAW SC 1157
Julius Stone, Res Gesta Raegitata, 55 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 66
Lund v. Inhabitants & C¬ 9 Cush (Mass) 36
R. v. Ring., A 1929 B 296
Supra note 1
Supra note 1
Bandela Nagaraju And Ors. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh., 1983 INDLAW AP 75
R v. Andrews (Donald Joseph)., [1987] AC 281
Supra note 1
Sharren, Res gestae- A Judicial Analysis, Legal Service India http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-500-res-gestae-a-judicial-analysis.html (last visited March 15, 2022).
Id.
Supra note 25
Commonwealth v. Arce., 690 N.E.2d 806, 807 (Mass. 1998)
Commonwealth v. Di Monte., 692 N.E.2d 45, 50 (Mass. 1998)
Uttam Singh v. State Of M.P., 2003 CriLJ 560
Sukhar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh., 2000 Cr.L.J. 29
Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr., 2000 CriLJ 3175
Bishna Bhiswadeb
