Evidence is an important source of finding out the truth and solution to disputed subjects. The quality of evidence is important in respect of disputed subjects. It is the reason that Section 5 says that- “Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.”

In this context, the provisions of Section 6, 7 & 8 are to be studied for the purpose of this question.

1. Facts forming part of the same TransactionSection 6 of the Act provides that “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.”

               Illustration:  A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it, as to form part of the transaction is a relevant fact. 

Principles of Res Gestae

Section 6 has propounded a principle called ‘Principle of Res Gestae’. The term ‘Res Gestae’ literally means ‘Related facts’. Such facts which form part of a transaction are called Res Gestae.’

The conclusion of Res Gestae in the evidence is- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction and therefore are relevant like the fact in issue. The main object of this section is to make knowable or to clear more the evidence of the facts of the issues so as to reach a correct conclusion.

Same transaction

The term ‘Same transaction’ is important for the application of Section 6 requires a fact must form part of the same transaction with other facts. According to Stephens– A transaction is a group of those acts or facts which combine with each other so that they are known by the same legal name, like- crime, breach of contract, etc.

Illustration- A is accused of the murder of B with a sword. Whatever was said or done by A or B or by-standers at the stack or shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction and is relevant.

It has become clear from the above that it is necessary for a statement to be a part of the transaction that it is of the time on which the event occurred. If the statement has been made after the end of the event then it will not be considered relevant.

In this matter, the case of ‘Jantela V. Rao VS. State of A.P. (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2791) is a good example. A bus has been burnt and several people have been injured. They were sent to the hospital and their statements were recorded by Magistrate. These statements cannot be considered to be part of the same transaction, because they were made a long time after the incident.

Similarly in the case of ‘V. Chandra Shekhar Rao versus P. Satya Naraian” (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2138) it has been stated by Supreme court that the telephone call made to the husband of deceased by the father of accused that murder has been done by his son, is not he part of one transaction.

Res Gestae and Hearsay Evidence

The principle of Res gestae is an exception to the principle of not accepting hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence may be admitted if it is part of the transaction.

Illustration- A person saw a running track, but not the accident. He goes near to the victim person and obtains knowledge regarding the incident. Such a person can give evidence in respect of words stated by the victim because it is a part of the incident.

2. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in IssueSection 7 of the act provides that- “Facts which are the occasion, cause of effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.” Thus, the provisions of the relevancy of such facts have been made under Section 7 which are occasion, cause or effect of the facts in issue.
3. Illustration- The question is whether A robbed B. The facts that shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the facts that he had it, to the third person are relevant.The question is whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant.One more example of it may be given. The question is whether A poisoned B. The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison and habits of B known to A, which, afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.

   In the case of ‘Ratan VS. Rajaram [(1971) 3 A.I.R. 801] the accused was charged with the murder of his wife by firing bullet. There is a fact that he was not happy with his wife and he had a friendly relation with another woman. It is a relevant fact because it describes the relations of the husband and wife which are very important facts in the case of murder.

3. Motive, preparation and previous or Subsequent ConductSection 8 of the Act says that- “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.The conduct of any party or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against which is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

   Thus, Section 8 provides three types of the relevancy of facts

1. Those facts which show or constitute the motive of the fact in issue or relevant fact;
2. Those facts which show or constitute the preparation of the fact in issue or relevant fact; and
3. The previous or subsequent conduct of any party or its agent to any suit or proceeding in reference to such suit or proceeding or any fact in issue or relevant fact

Motive

According to Whigmore, “Motive is feeling due to which act is committed.” In other words, Motive is that due to which any person is compelled to act. Generally, each work is being done by a motive. That is a motive which induces a person to act.

The motive is not an offence by itself, whether it is so faulty. In the case of ‘Kehar Singh VS. State [(1988) 3 S.C.C. 609] it has been said by the Supreme Court that Motive, mental condition, agitation and feeling of revenge is neither an offence by itself nor is sufficient to relate the accused with the incident, but the evidence of motive becomes very important once the offence is committed. It is the reason that evidence of Motive is relevant.

In the case of Tarshim Kumar VS. Delhi Administration (A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2585) it has been held by the Supreme Court that when a matter depends upon the circumstantial, then evidence of motive becomes important. In the case of Lokesh Shiv Kumar VS. State of Karnataka (A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 956) it has been held by the Supreme Court that the importance of motive comes to an end for the commission of the offence in a case when the case has already been established or proved by the medical evidence or other confirmatory evidence.

Preparation

Every act has to be performed after preparation, hence its evidence is relevant. Section 8 says that- The preparation made before the happening of the fact in issue or relevant fact, is relevant.

Illustration- Buying poison with the intention of committing murder or buy an instrument with the intention of committing theft, is preparation.

It is noteworthy, that was preparation is not punishable. But on the commission of the offence, the evidence of preparation becomes important.

Conduct

Conduct of any person has an important place in evidence law. It is the conduct which represents the guilty mind. The guilty mind creates guilty conduct.

Illustration- A is accused of the murder of B. C said to A that the police are coming to look for the man who murdered B. A ran away from that place. It is a relevant fact because it reflects the conduct of A.

Such conducts maybe previous or subsequent conduct of the incident.