Indian evidence act notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Indian evidence act notes PDF

Description

Res Gestae

Sec. 6 . Relevancy of facts forming 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. (a) 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. (b) a is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. (c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself. (d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact. Facts which are not themselves in issue may affect the probability of the existence of facts in issue and be used as the foundation of inference respecting them ; such facts are described in Act as relevant facts. Every fact is a part of other facts. Sec. 6 lays down that the facts which are so connected with the facts in issue that they form part of the same transaction are relevant facts. A definition of the word 'same transaction' is given by Stephen who says, “ a transaction is a group of facts, connected together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. The rule of efficient test for determining whether a fact forms part of the same transaction or another “depends upon whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose, or as cause and effect, or as probable and subsidiary act as to constitute one continuous action.”

Doctrine of res gestae or parts of transaction Apparently the phrase is well established in Law of Evidence. It has been used in two senses. In the wider sense it covers all the probative facts by which res gestae are reproduced to the tribunal where the direct evidence of witness or perception by the court are unattainable. In restricted meaning res gestae imports the conception of action by action. To be clear, in the restricted sense “facts which constitute the res gestae must be such as so connected with the very

transaction or fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it.” They are the acts talking for themselves not what people say when talking about the acts. The section is quite apparently based upon the English doctrine of res gestae. This Latin phrase means “things done” and when translated into English means “things said and done in the course of a transaction”. Every case that comes before a court of law has a fact story behind it. Every fact story is made of certain acts, omissions and statements. Every such act, omission or statement as throws some light upon the nature of the transaction or reveals its true quality or character should be held as a part of the transaction and the evidence of it should be received. “To state a fact or event in isolation without reference to its antecedents in time, place or surrounding circumstances, may render the fact, difficult or even impossible to comprehend. Other facts or circumstances may be so closely connected with the fact in issue as to be, in reality, part and parcel of the same transaction. Such ancillary facts are described as forming part of the res gestae of the fact in issue, and may be proved.

The expression res gestae as applied to a crime means the complete transaction from its starting point in the act of the accused until the end is reached. What in any case constitutes a transaction depends wholly on the character of the act and the circumstances of the case. It frequently happens that, as evidence of circumstances may be resorted to for the purpose of proving the commission of a particular offence charged, the proof of those circumstances involves the proof of other acts either criminal or apparently innocent. In such cases it is proper that the chain of evidence should be unbroken. The words spoken by the person doing the act, or by the person to whom they were done or by the bystanders are relevant as a part of the same transaction, but it should be borne in mind that such statements or declarations, as they are called, in order that they might be admissible as res gestae should be contemporaneous with the transaction in issue, that is, the interval should not be made as to give time and opportunity for fabrication and connection and they should not amount a mere narrative of a past occurance. If the statement is answer to a query after lapse of some time it cannot be treated as res gestae. At the time of murder the cry of deceased 'save me' and that of the children that their mother was being killed are relevant as res gestae. In Ratten v The Queen A man was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the shot went off accidently. There was evidence to the effect that the deceased telephoned say : “Get me the police please”. Before the operator could connect the police, the caller, who spoke in distress, gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter the police came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Her call and the words she spoke were held to be relevant as a part of the transaction which brought about her death. Her call in distress showed

that the shooting in question was intentional and not accidental. For no victim of an accident could have thought of getting the police before the happening. This then is the utility of the doctrine of res gestae. It enables the court to take into account all the essential details of a transaction. A transaction can be truly understood only when all its integral parts are known and not in isolation from each other. The Court of Appeal held in another case that a statement made to a police officer by the victim of an assault identifying the assailant while moving with the police in his car was relevant as showing that he had seen the victim of an assault and who committed it.

Acts or Omissions as Res Gestae So far as acts and omissions accompanying a transaction are concerned, much difficulty does not arise. Nature of the transaction itself indicates what should be its essential parts. In case of Milne v Leisler a question was whether a contract had been made with a person in his personal capacity or as an agent of another. The fact that the contractor wrote a letter to his broker asking him to make inquiries was held to be relevant.

Statements as Res gestae Statements may also accompany Physical happenings. In the application of this principle the courts have been very strict and cautious. For statements can be easily concocted. Hence the principle that the statement should have been made so soon before or after or along with the incident that there was hardly any time to deliberate and thereby to fabricate a false story. In case of R v. Bedingfield a woman, with a throat cut, came suddenly out of a room, in which she had been injured and shortly before she died, said : “Oh dear Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me.” It was held that the statement was not admissible. Anything uttered by the deceased at the time the act was being done would be admissible, as, for instance if she has been heard to say something, as “don't Harry”. But here it was something, stated by her after it was

all over. The statement was also held to be not relevant as dying declaration because she did not have the time to reflect that she was dying. In case of R v. Christie an indecent assault was made upon a young boy. Shortly after the incident the boy made certain statements to his mother by which he described the offence and the man who assaulted him. The evidence of the statement was excluded. Remarked that the boy's statement was so separated by time and circumstances from the actual commission of the crime that it was not admissible as part of the res gestae.

The emphasis of the courts seem to be that “the words should be at least de recenti and not after an interval which should allow time for reflection and concocting a story.” The statement should be an exclamation “forced out of a witness by the emotion generated by an event” rather than a subsequent narrative. The courts have stressing the necessity for close association in time,place and circumstances between he statement and the crucial events. It has been held by the Supreme Court in R. M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra, that “a contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact. It is res gestae”. Here the act of the assailant intruding into the courtyard during dead of the night, victim's identification of the assailant her pronouncement that appellant was standing with a gun and his firing the gun at her, all circumstances so intertwined with each other by proximity of time and space that the statement of the deceased became part of the same transaction. Hence it is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. In Rattan Singh v. State of H. P. it was held that where shortly before the incidence in which a woman dies of gun shot, she exclaimed that a man was standing near her with a gun in his hand, the statement was held to be sufficiently proximate in time to the happening as to be a part of the same transaction. Res Gestae and Hearsay Hearsay evidence means the statement of a person who has not sent he happening of the transaction, but has heard of it from others. But such evidence can be given if it is a part of the transaction. In Sukhar v. State of U.P., One morning while deceased was going on the road, Accused caught hold of his back and fired a pistol shot towards him, deceased raised an alarm on account of which PW 1 and PW 2 reached the scene of occurrence and that point of time, deceased fell down and the accused made his escape. The two witnesses, brought deceased tot he police station whereupon the police recorded of the statement of deceased and started investigation. During trial the prosecution witnesses PWs 1& 2merely stated as to what they heard from the injured at the relevant point of time and according to PW 2, the injured had told him that the assailant had fired upon him. While the trial was pending the injured died. The High Court heavily relied upon the statement of PW 2. Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the evidence of the Evidence of PW 2 cannot be held to be admissible under Section 6 of Evidence Act inasmuch as what the injured told the witness when the witness when the witness reached the scene of occurrence and the factum of alleged shooting by the accused at the injured cannot be said to have formed part of the same transaction. The Supreme Court said that Section 6 of the evidence act is an exception to the general rule hereunder the hearsay evidence become admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence

within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which allow fabrication. The statement sought to be admitted, therefore as forming part of res gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter.

With reference to above explanation and referring to the case of Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., the court held that the statement indicating that the injured thold that the accused has fired at him, would become admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

Proved , Disproved and Not Proved When is a fact said to be proved. Section 3 says : Proved : A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The degree of certainty which must be arrived at before a fact is said to be proved is that described in this section. The section also states as to when a fact is said to be disproved. Disproved : A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. The section concludes with this set of provisions by defining a fact which is said to be “not proved”. It says : Not Proved : A fact is said to be not proved when it is neither proved not disproved. These provisions of the Act deal with the degree or standard of proof. What and how much proof is necessary to convince the judge of existence of a fact in issue? The answer depends upon many circumstances as different standards of proof are demanded in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, for example, a matter is taken to be proved when the balance of probability suggests it, nut in criminal cases the court requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof, nor moral belief of the judge in the guilt of the accused. Supreme Court held that in Criminal cases there has to be a proof which leaves behind no reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. The victim's dying declaration which left many uncovered points and also narrated an unnatural story. Because of these doubts the evidence was rejected.

The court has to proceed on the basis of the “matters before it”, which may be in the shape of evidence or any other shape. “Proved” :- “Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible. It means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to conclusion”. All that can be done is to adduce such evidence as that the mind of the tribunal is satisfied that the fact is so. In the ordinary affairs of life courts do not require demonstrative evidence. Absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is seldom to be had in the affairs of life and we are frequently obliged to act on degrees of probabilities which fall very short of it indeed. In M. Narsingha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matter before it the Court either believe it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under circumstances of particular case, to act upon supposition that it exists. This is the definition of the word 'proved' in Evidence Act. What is required is production of such materials on which the Court reasonably act to reach the supposition that the fact exist. Proof of facts depends upon degree of possibility of having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any

important matter concerning him. The extent to which a particular evidence aids in proving the fact in controversy is called as probative force. This probative force must be sufficient to induce the court either (a) to believe in the existence of the fact sought to be proved, or (b) to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. The test is of probability upon which a prudent man may base his opinion. In other words, it is the estimate which a prudent man makes of the probabilities having regard to what must be his duty as a result of his estimate.

Proof and suspicion :- It must be borne in mind that suspicion and conjecture cannot take the place of legal proof.

Matter before it :- In order to decide as to whether a particular fact is proved, the court has to consider the 'matter' before it. The expression, “matters before it” in this definition includes materials which do not fall within the definition of 'evidence' as given in Sec. 3. The result of local enquiry by a court, material objects brought before the court, material objects brought before the court, the demeanor of witnesses, admission by parties, confessions by the accused, statement of the accused, Commissioner's reports, are not evidence according to the definition given in Sec. 3. But they are all matters before the court to be considered while coming to conclusion.

“Disproved and not Proved” :- The definition of the word 'disproved' is a converse of the definition of the word 'proved'. The expression 'not proved' indicates a state of mind in between the two, that is, when one cannot say whether a fact is proved or disproved. Not Proved is something different from being “false”. An inability to prove a claim does not mean in all cases that it is false. It negatives both proof and disproof. Sec. 3 of Evidence Act, while explaining the meaning of proved, disproved and not proved provides, the standard of proof. This standard should be of ordinary prudence in person, who will judge its existence or non-existence from the standard of circumstances before him. In Naval Kishor Somani v. Poonam Somani, Andhra Pradesh High Court said that a fact which is proved does not necessarily mean that it is false one. The expression 'Proved' is followed by expression disproved. This is followed by difinition of 'not proved'. The fact is said to be not proved when it is neither proved not disproved. On the other hand the fact is said to be disproved when after considering the matters before it the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its bib-existence. The word 'disproved' is akin to the word 'false'. What is disproved is normally taken to be false thing. It will be thus seen that a fact proved is not necessarily a fact disproved. A fact which is 'not proved' may be false or true. A doubt lingers about its truth merely because it is not proved or may not jump to the conclusion that it is disproved. A fact is disproved normally by the person who claims that alleged that the fact is not true. A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that the fact in question does not exist and that the Court believes the non-existence of that fact from the standard of man of ordinary prudence. Not Proved where the fact is deemed to be not proved from the standard of a person of ordinary prudence. The phrase NOT PROVED means neither the fact is proved with certainty nor the fact is believed to exist. The phrase NOT PROVED is between the phrase proved and disproved. And the phrase not proved is the result of careful scrutiny of the person of ordinary-prudence that the fact either exists with certainty nor its non-existence is proved with certainty. It is provision between existence and non-existence of the fact in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence.

CONSPIRACY

S. 10 Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an

offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Illustration :- Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India. The facts that B procured arms in Eurpoe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from De...