From Relevance to Confusion: The Misapplication ofSection 6 by Indian Courts the Doctrine ofRes Gestae in India
The Doctrine of Res Gestae in India
Keywords:
Indian Evidence Act, Section 6, Res Gestae, Admissibility, Relevance, Hearsay, Judicial Misinterpretation, Evidence Law, Common Law, Stephen’s TheoryAbstract
While the common law doctrine of res gestae was introduced as an exception to the rule against hearsay, its inherently ambiguous nature led to interpretative chaos in English jurisprudence in the 19th century. To avoid this confusion, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen drafter Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as a rule of relevance, which is distinct from the concept of admissibility. This approach meant that facts that formed part of the same transaction would be considered relevant, irrespective of time or place. However, Indian courts have erroneously interpreted Section 6 as an embodiment of the res gestae exception- treating it as a rule of admissibility, thereby reintroducing the very problems that Stephen intended to eliminate. Through a doctrinal and case law analysis, this paper shows how courts have imposed unwarranted admissibility conditions such as contemporaneity, undermining procedural safeguards like cross-examination, and running into the issue of circular proof. It calls for a return to Stephen’s original framework, that provided a more logically coherent and legally sound understanding of Section 6.
References
1. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. § 55; Indian Evidence Act, 1872. § 60.
2. Campbell J. Res gestae and hearsay evidence. Mod Law Rev. 1972;35(5):540-543.
3. Tribe LH. Triangulating hearsay. Harv Law Rev. 1974;87(5):957.
4. Ibid.
5. Thompson v. Trevanion. 1693; Skinner 40.
6. Aveson v. Kinnaird. 1805;6 East 188.
7. Teper v. R. 1952; AC 480, 496.
8. R v. Bedingfield. 1879;14 Cox CC 341.
9. Ratten v. R. 1972; AC 378; 1971;3 WLR 930 (PC).
10. R v. Andrews. 1987; AC 281.
11. Tiwar A. Rethinking Sukhar v. State of UP: how the interpretation of Section 6 of Evidence Act adopted a Thayerite approach rather than Stephen's. SCC OnLine Blog OpEd. 2022;83.
12. Thayer JB. A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1898. p. 265.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Chapter 4 and 5.
17. Stephen JF. A digest of the law of evidence. 5th ed. London: MacMillan and Company; 1887.
18. Ibid. (n 11).
19. Indian Evidence Act, 1872. § 6.
20. Ibid. (n 17). p. 4.
21. Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Chapter II.
22. Ratanlal, Dhirajlal. Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act. LexisNexis; 2022.
23. Prakash S. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. SCC J. 2017;1:J-21.
24. Hadu v. State. 1950 SCC OnLine Ori 57. para 13.
25. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1996 SC 2791.
26. Ibid.
27. Ratan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 1997;4 SCC 161.
28. Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1968 SC 147.
29. Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1999;9 SCC 507.
30. Bhairon Singh v. State of MP. 2009;13 SCC 80.
31. State of MP v. Ramesh. 2011;4 SCC 786.
32. Ibid. (n 29).
33. Indian Evidence Act, 1872. § 6.
34. Ibid. (n 27).
35. Ibid. (n 23).
36. Ibid.
