- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction [Section 4]
Introduction
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction. The section provides that facts which are not themselves in issue may still become relevant if they are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact that they form part of the same transaction. Such facts are relevant irrespective of whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
This section embodies the doctrine of Res Gestae, which permits the admission of acts, statements, and circumstances connected with the principal occurrence so that the Court may understand the complete transaction.
Meaning of Res Gestae
The expression Res Gestae is a Latin phrase meaning “things done.” In legal terminology, it refers to things said or done during the course of a transaction. Although the phrase itself is not used in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Section 4 incorporates this doctrine.
The doctrine recognizes that certain statements or acts become relevant because they are inseparably connected with the occurrence under inquiry. These statements are admitted because they are spontaneous and made under the immediate influence of the event, leaving little scope for fabrication.
In Bhairon Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that facts not in issue become relevant when they are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. Statements must be substantially contemporaneous with the incident and made immediately before, during, or after the occurrence.
Res Gestae as an Exception to Hearsay Rule
Ordinarily, hearsay evidence is not admissible because oral evidence must be direct. However, Section 4 creates an exception to this rule by making certain hearsay statements admissible if they form part of the same transaction.
In Sukhar v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that statements admissible under this section must be almost contemporaneous with the occurrence and there should not be any interval sufficient to allow fabrication or concoction. The statement must arise naturally and spontaneously from the event itself.
The Court further observed that the declaration may even be admissible if made shortly after the occurrence, provided the stress or excitement caused by the event still continues.
Conditions for Applicability of Res Gestae
For statements or acts to be admissible under Section 4, certain conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, the facts or statements must relate to the fact in issue or relevant fact. Secondly, they must form part of the same transaction. Thirdly, they should be substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence. Finally, the statements must be spontaneous and made without opportunity for reflection or fabrication.
The test is whether there exists continuity of action, proximity of time and place, and community of purpose.
Meaning of Same Transaction
A transaction refers to a connected series of facts which can collectively be described by a single name such as a crime, contract, or occurrence. The acts may occur at different places and times, yet they may still form part of the same transaction if they are connected through continuity and purpose.
The Courts determine the existence of the same transaction by considering factors such as:
Admissibility of Verbal Statements
Statements become admissible under Section 4 only when they accompany and explain the transaction. They must be made during the occurrence or immediately before or after it. Statements made after considerable delay generally lose their character as part of the transaction because the possibility of fabrication arises.
The test for admissibility is spontaneity. If the statement appears to be a natural and immediate reaction to the event, it is admissible under the doctrine of res gestae.
Whose Statements are Relevant
Statements or acts of the accused, victim, bystanders, or other persons connected with the occurrence may become relevant if they form part of the same transaction.
However, statements of persons who arrived after the occurrence was over are generally not admissible under this section.
In Nasir Din v Emperor, the Court clarified that the term “bystanders” refers only to persons actually present during the occurrence and not to persons who gathered later.
Illustration (a) – Murder by BeatingWhere A is accused of murdering B by beating him, everything said or done by A, B, or the bystanders during the beating or immediately before or after it becomes relevant because it forms part of the same transaction.
This illustration demonstrates how spontaneous acts and statements accompanying the occurrence become admissible under Section 4.
Important English Cases on Res GestaeIn Thompson v Trevanion, the wife’s statement made immediately after receiving injuries was admitted because she had no time to fabricate the statement. Chief Justice Holt observed that declarations accompanying an act are admissible in explanation of it.
In Regina v Bedingfield, a woman emerged from a room with her throat cut and exclaimed, “See what Bedingfield has done to me.” The statement was held inadmissible because it was made after completion of the occurrence. This decision was widely criticized.
In Ratten v The Queen, a woman telephoned the police moments before being shot dead and hysterically sought help. The Privy Council held the statement admissible because it was made under the stress of the event and formed part of the same transaction.
Indian Judicial Decisions
In R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that a contemporaneous tape-recorded conversation is admissible under Section 4 as part of res gestae.
In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court explained that the rationale behind Section 4 lies in spontaneity and immediacy. Statements become admissible only when they are contemporaneous with the occurrence or made immediately thereafter. If there is sufficient interval allowing fabrication, the statement ceases to be part of the same transaction.
In State of Maharashtra v Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari, the Supreme Court observed that res gestae includes spontaneous reactions, cries for help, exclamations of fear or pain, and acts having a live and direct connection with the occurrence.
Illustration (b) – Waging War Against Government
Where A is accused of waging war against the Government of India, facts such as destruction of property, attacks on troops, and breaking open of jails become relevant because they form part of the same transaction of armed insurrection, even though A may not have personally participated in all those acts.
Illustration (c) – Libel
Where a libel is contained in one letter forming part of correspondence, other connected letters relating to the same subject also become relevant because together they constitute the same transaction.
Illustration (d) – Delivery of Goods
Where goods are delivered through several intermediate persons before reaching A, every successive delivery becomes relevant because all deliveries together form part of the same transaction of delivery from B to A.
Conclusion
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam incorporates the doctrine of res gestae and permits admission of acts, statements, and circumstances forming part of the same transaction. It serves as an important exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
The section ensures that the Court receives a complete picture of the occurrence by admitting facts connected through continuity, spontaneity, and proximity. Such evidence often becomes crucial in understanding the true nature of the transaction and in discovering the truth in judicial proceedings.
Introduction
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction. The section provides that facts which are not themselves in issue may still become relevant if they are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact that they form part of the same transaction. Such facts are relevant irrespective of whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
This section embodies the doctrine of Res Gestae, which permits the admission of acts, statements, and circumstances connected with the principal occurrence so that the Court may understand the complete transaction.
Meaning of Res Gestae
The expression Res Gestae is a Latin phrase meaning “things done.” In legal terminology, it refers to things said or done during the course of a transaction. Although the phrase itself is not used in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Section 4 incorporates this doctrine.
The doctrine recognizes that certain statements or acts become relevant because they are inseparably connected with the occurrence under inquiry. These statements are admitted because they are spontaneous and made under the immediate influence of the event, leaving little scope for fabrication.
In Bhairon Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that facts not in issue become relevant when they are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. Statements must be substantially contemporaneous with the incident and made immediately before, during, or after the occurrence.
Res Gestae as an Exception to Hearsay Rule
Ordinarily, hearsay evidence is not admissible because oral evidence must be direct. However, Section 4 creates an exception to this rule by making certain hearsay statements admissible if they form part of the same transaction.
In Sukhar v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that statements admissible under this section must be almost contemporaneous with the occurrence and there should not be any interval sufficient to allow fabrication or concoction. The statement must arise naturally and spontaneously from the event itself.
The Court further observed that the declaration may even be admissible if made shortly after the occurrence, provided the stress or excitement caused by the event still continues.
Conditions for Applicability of Res Gestae
For statements or acts to be admissible under Section 4, certain conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, the facts or statements must relate to the fact in issue or relevant fact. Secondly, they must form part of the same transaction. Thirdly, they should be substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence. Finally, the statements must be spontaneous and made without opportunity for reflection or fabrication.
The test is whether there exists continuity of action, proximity of time and place, and community of purpose.
Meaning of Same Transaction
A transaction refers to a connected series of facts which can collectively be described by a single name such as a crime, contract, or occurrence. The acts may occur at different places and times, yet they may still form part of the same transaction if they are connected through continuity and purpose.
The Courts determine the existence of the same transaction by considering factors such as:
- proximity of time,
- proximity of place,
- continuity of action,
- and community of purpose.
Admissibility of Verbal Statements
Statements become admissible under Section 4 only when they accompany and explain the transaction. They must be made during the occurrence or immediately before or after it. Statements made after considerable delay generally lose their character as part of the transaction because the possibility of fabrication arises.
The test for admissibility is spontaneity. If the statement appears to be a natural and immediate reaction to the event, it is admissible under the doctrine of res gestae.
Whose Statements are Relevant
Statements or acts of the accused, victim, bystanders, or other persons connected with the occurrence may become relevant if they form part of the same transaction.
However, statements of persons who arrived after the occurrence was over are generally not admissible under this section.
In Nasir Din v Emperor, the Court clarified that the term “bystanders” refers only to persons actually present during the occurrence and not to persons who gathered later.
Illustration (a) – Murder by BeatingWhere A is accused of murdering B by beating him, everything said or done by A, B, or the bystanders during the beating or immediately before or after it becomes relevant because it forms part of the same transaction.
This illustration demonstrates how spontaneous acts and statements accompanying the occurrence become admissible under Section 4.
Important English Cases on Res GestaeIn Thompson v Trevanion, the wife’s statement made immediately after receiving injuries was admitted because she had no time to fabricate the statement. Chief Justice Holt observed that declarations accompanying an act are admissible in explanation of it.
In Regina v Bedingfield, a woman emerged from a room with her throat cut and exclaimed, “See what Bedingfield has done to me.” The statement was held inadmissible because it was made after completion of the occurrence. This decision was widely criticized.
In Ratten v The Queen, a woman telephoned the police moments before being shot dead and hysterically sought help. The Privy Council held the statement admissible because it was made under the stress of the event and formed part of the same transaction.
Indian Judicial Decisions
In R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that a contemporaneous tape-recorded conversation is admissible under Section 4 as part of res gestae.
In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court explained that the rationale behind Section 4 lies in spontaneity and immediacy. Statements become admissible only when they are contemporaneous with the occurrence or made immediately thereafter. If there is sufficient interval allowing fabrication, the statement ceases to be part of the same transaction.
In State of Maharashtra v Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari, the Supreme Court observed that res gestae includes spontaneous reactions, cries for help, exclamations of fear or pain, and acts having a live and direct connection with the occurrence.
Illustration (b) – Waging War Against Government
Where A is accused of waging war against the Government of India, facts such as destruction of property, attacks on troops, and breaking open of jails become relevant because they form part of the same transaction of armed insurrection, even though A may not have personally participated in all those acts.
Illustration (c) – Libel
Where a libel is contained in one letter forming part of correspondence, other connected letters relating to the same subject also become relevant because together they constitute the same transaction.
Illustration (d) – Delivery of Goods
Where goods are delivered through several intermediate persons before reaching A, every successive delivery becomes relevant because all deliveries together form part of the same transaction of delivery from B to A.
Conclusion
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam incorporates the doctrine of res gestae and permits admission of acts, statements, and circumstances forming part of the same transaction. It serves as an important exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
The section ensures that the Court receives a complete picture of the occurrence by admitting facts connected through continuity, spontaneity, and proximity. Such evidence often becomes crucial in understanding the true nature of the transaction and in discovering the truth in judicial proceedings.
0 Comments