Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 185

Section 6

Section 6 reads as follows:

Section 6: Relevancy of factsforming part of same transaction: 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.

There are some illustrations set out under section 6.

The section says when facts though not in issue become relevant facts.

In the 69th Report, after a very elaborate discussion, it was stated (see para 7.40) that no amendment is necessary.

The section, along with others, refers to the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as res gestae. It is an exception to the hearsay rule in as much as facts heard are relevant as being part of the same transaction.

As pointed out by Sarkar (15th Ed. 1999 p.155) facts relevant to the issue (res gestae) have been arranged in the Act in the following manner:

(1) Things connected with the facts in issue as part of the same transaction, occasion, cause, effect, motive, conduct etc. (sections 6-16)

(2) Things said about it, viz., admissions, confessions (sections 17-31)

(3) Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses (sections 32-33)

(4) Statements under special circumstances (sections 34-39)

(5) Things decreed in courts, viz., judgments in other cases (sections 40-44)

(6) Opinions about it (sections 45-51)

(7) Character and reputation of parties concerned (sections 52-55)

The section uses the words 'same transaction'.

The words 'same transaction' occur in sections 220 and 223 Cr. P.C. in a restricted sense and also in illustration (a) of section 6. But the word 'transaction' is used in a more general sense in section 6.

The principle of law embodied in section 6 is, as stated above, usually known as the rule of res gestae. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the facts in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statements on facts admissible under section 6 is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement, a fact in relation to the fact in issue.

But, it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneously with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. 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 gestae. (Gentela Vijayavardana Rao v. State of AP, AIR 1996 SC 2791).

Thus, the provisions of section 6 have been sufficiently explained in judicial decisions.

We agree with the 69th Report that no amendment is necessary in section 6.

Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys