Doctrine of Res Gestae and Evidence of Common Intention under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

(Sections 4, 5, 6 & 8 Of BSA)

Introduction

The administration of justice depends not just on substantive law but also on procedural law and evidence law. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides the framework that governs admissibility and relevancy of facts in judicial proceedings. Among its most crucial provisions are those that deal with relevancy of facts, particularly the Doctrine of Res Gestae and the evidence of common intention in criminal acts.

This explanation discusses in detail the legal principles embodied in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the BSA, 2023, focusing especially on how the doctrine of res gestae and common intention operate in Indian evidence law.

Section 4: Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction

Statutory Language:

Text of the Section:

“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact 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.”

This section captures the core of Res Gestae. The essential idea is that events that are part of the same chain of circumstances and arise from the same cause or motive form one continuous transaction. The law allows such facts to be admitted in evidence to provide the full context of the incident.

Section 4 defines relevancy in the following terms:

“One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts.”

Detailed Explanation:

This section forms the foundation of the law of evidence. It lays down a principle that facts are not relevant unless they are connected in a manner recognized by the Act. The term “relevant” here does not carry a casual meaning but a legal meaning—only those facts which fall under the specific provisions from Sections 5 to 55 of the BSA are considered legally relevant.

In other words, the mere fact that something seems logically connected or interesting to a case is not enough. The connection must be one recognized by law.

Understanding the Doctrine of Res Gestae:

The phrase “res gestae” is Latin, meaning “things done”. This doctrine allows the inclusion of certain facts or statements which form part of the same transaction as the main fact in issue.

It provides a limited exception to the hearsay rule, based on the idea that spontaneous statements or acts made during or immediately after an event are likely to be truthful because there is no time for fabrication.

Essential Elements of Res Gestae:

1. Same Transaction: The statement or act must form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue.
2. Proximity in Time and Place: There must be a close continuity.
3. Spontaneity: The statement must be made without premeditation, arising out of a natural reaction to the event.
4. Causal Connection: There must be a direct connection between the fact in issue and the statement or act.

Nature of the “Transaction”:

The term “transaction” is broader than a single act. It can include a series of acts so connected by time, place, cause, and purpose that they form a continuous whole.

For example, in a kidnapping case, the events from the abduction to recovery of the victim may form part of one transaction.

Practical Application:

• Statements made during a crime (e.g., “Don’t shoot me!”) are admissible.
• Acts done immediately after the incident (like hiding a weapon) may be included if they are continuous with the main event.
• Gestures, screams, running, or pointing can be part of res gestae.

Rationale:

The rationale is that spontaneous statements or acts reflect the truth, as the mind has no opportunity for invention or distortion. This aids the court in understanding the context, flow, and intention behind the main act.

Example:

Suppose a man is accused of theft. The fact that he is poor may seem relevant, but unless it directly connects to the theft through legally admissible means—such as motive or conduct—it cannot be admitted in evidence.

Illustrations:

1. A is accused of murdering B. Just before the murder, A and B were seen quarrelling, and B shouted “You will kill me one day!” This quarrel forms part of the same transaction.
2. A rapes B, and B immediately runs out and screams to neighbors that A assaulted her. The statement is spontaneous and part of the transaction.
3. In a chain robbery, A robs a woman and then drops her ID card while running. The ID card found nearby is part of the same transaction.
4. A is accused of arson, and witnesses say they saw A lighting a match and running. Their immediate statement is part of the same chain.

Case Law:
In Rattan v. R. (1971), a woman made a phone call during the attack. The call was held admissible as it was spontaneous and part of the res gestae.
In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 2791, the Supreme Court allowed the testimony of passengers who heard the accused threaten to burn the bus.
In Sukhar v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 2855, the dying declaration made immediately after a stabbing was admitted under Res Gestae.

The expression ‘res gestae’ as applied to crimes means the complete transaction from its starting point to the end point.

The time: The act or transaction may be completed in a moment of time, or if there is connecting circumstances it may extend, through a period of days, or weeks or even months.

Space: No limitation can be imposed as to the territorial boundaries with in which the transaction must occur.

Statements: The words spoken by the person doing the act or by the person being a victim of the act or the bystanders should be part of the same transaction but it should be kept in mind that these statements should happen at the time of the commission of the act either just before or just after the act. In no circumstances should they be referred as a past occurrence.

Res Gestae an exception to hearsay evidence:

Case: R v. Foster: The deceased had been killed in an accident by a speeding truck. The witness had not seen incident but only the noise of a speeding truck.

Section 5: Occasion, Cause or Effect of Facts in Issue or Relevant Facts

Statutory Language:

Text of the Section:
“Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts or facts in issue… or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence… are relevant.”

This section allows evidence of background events, causes leading up to the incident, and the aftermath. Unlike Section 4, which emphasizes simultaneity, Section 5 admits facts that occurred before or after the main event if they explain it.

Explanation:
The doctrine recognizes that an event doesn’t happen in isolation. For a trial to be just, the court must understand the state of affairs leading to and resulting from the crime. This includes motive-creating circumstances, effects such as injury, or opportunities created by prior events.

Illustrations:

1. A is accused of theft. The fact that he was seen roaming around the house the night before is relevant.
2. A is accused of murder. Just before the murder, B showed A a letter threatening A’s reputation. That letter and its contents explain the cause.
3. A is accused of poisoning B. B’s vomiting and the lab reports showing poison are effects and hence relevant.
4. A and B fight, and later B is found dead. The broken glass and bloodstains at the spot are relevant as effects of the incident.

Footprints: The evidence that there were footprints near the offense is a relevant fact.

Injuries of the accused: The fact that the accused in a riot case had injuries on their person is relevant to show that they took part in the riot.

Case Law:
In Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, the victim’s prior behavior and health were held admissible to establish context.
In State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617, facts showing a motive and opportunity were admitted under Section 5.
In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, the conduct of the child victim after the incident was held relevant to explain the psychological impact of the act.

SECTION 6: Motive, Preparation, Conduct, and Common Intention

Section 6 introduces one of the most important principles in evidence law. It deals with the preliminary and subsequent acts that help the court understand the reasoning and behavior behind the fact in issue.

Statutory Provisions:

Text of the Section:
“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 to the proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding… is also relevant.”

This section focuses on what led the person to commit the act (motive), what they did to prepare for it (preparation), and how they behaved before or after it (conduct). These aspects are crucial in criminal trials.

Section 6 renders relevant:

1. Motive
2. Preparation
3. Conduct (previous and subsequent)
4. Evidence showing common intention or conspiracy

Let’s understand each part in detail.

Motive

Meaning:

Motive refers to the underlying reason that prompts a person to do an act. While motive is not essential in every case, it becomes important in circumstantial evidence cases or where the identity of the perpetrator is disputed.

Examples:

• Jealousy, revenge, financial gain, hatred.
• Previous disputes, love affairs, or property disagreements.

Relevance:

Though motive alone cannot prove guilt, it helps support the probability of the accused's involvement.

Preparation

Meaning:

Preparation involves prior arrangements or acts done to facilitate the commission of the offence. This could include buying weapons, scouting locations, recruiting accomplices, or planning an alibi.

Legal Importance:

Proof of preparation shows that the act was deliberate and intentional, thereby ruling out accident or spontaneity.

Example:

If A buys poison a day before B’s death, it supports a planned murder, not an accidental death.

Conduct

Meaning:

Conduct refers to acts or omissions of the accused or others which relate to the fact in issue. Conduct can be either inculpatory (suggesting guilt) or exculpatory (suggesting innocence).

Conduct may be:

• Before the offence (e.g., stalking, threats).
• After the offence (e.g., absconding, destroying evidence, surrendering).

Rules for Admissibility:

• Conduct must be closely connected with the facts in issue.
• It must not be too remote in time or place.
• It must be voluntary and unambiguous

Illustrations:

1. A buys poison before B’s death. This is relevant preparation.
2. A is caught destroying evidence after the incident. His conduct shows guilt.
3. B files a complaint just after being attacked by A. The act of complaining is conduct.
4. A absconds after committing murder. His absconding is relevant.

Case Law:
In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 747, motive and conduct were crucial in connecting the accused to the crime.
In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946, the Supreme Court explained that the accused’s preparation and motive were decisive in determining abetment to suicide.
In Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, AIR 2008 SC 19, the accused’s act of fleeing the scene was treated as conduct showing consciousness of guilt.

Section 8: Statements or Acts by Co-Conspirators in Furtherance of Common Design

Text of the Section:
“When there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence… anything said, done or written by any one of such persons… is a relevant fact as against each of them.”

Section 8 is based on the principle that all acts done by one conspirator in furtherance of the common objective are binding on others, provided the conspiracy is proven.

Explanation:
This provision treats the conspirators as one unit. Once the prosecution shows prima facie evidence of conspiracy, any act, writing, or speech by one conspirator becomes admissible against others. It is essential that the act is in furtherance of the conspiracy and not after its completion.

Illustrations:

1. A and B plan to rob a bank. A writes a letter to B finalizing the date. That letter is admissible against both.
2. C recruits people for the plan. His conversations with them are relevant against other conspirators.
3. B is caught with explosives. The purchase receipts and his confession implicate A as co-conspirator.
4. D publishes a pamphlet supporting the conspiracy goal. This act is relevant against all conspirators.

Case Law:
In Kehar Singh v. State (1988), the Supreme Court held that once a conspiracy is established, all acts of co-conspirators can be used against each other.
In Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2344, phone calls between conspirators were held admissible.
In State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case), AIR 1999 SC 2640, documents and messages exchanged between LTTE members were admitted under the conspiracy rule.

What is Common Intention?

Common intention is a pre-arranged plan among two or more persons to commit an offense together. The liability under this principle extends to all persons who share the intent, even if they do not individually perform the criminal act.

• This doctrine ensures that no member of a criminal group escapes liability merely because they did not execute the crime themselves.
• The concept is often applied in cases of murder, robbery, and conspiracy, where multiple individuals collaborate in a criminal act.

Difference Between Common Intention and Conspiracy

Evidence of Common Intention

Meaning:

Common intention means a shared plan or purpose among multiple persons to commit a criminal act. When such an intention is shown, all participants become jointly liable for the act committed.

This concept aligns with joint liability under criminal law, often applied in cases under Section 34 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Essential Ingredients:

1. Pre-arranged Plan: There must be a prior meeting of minds.
2. Participation: Physical presence is not necessary, but active association is.
3. Unity of Purpose: All must act to achieve the same objective.
4. Knowledge: Each must be aware of the others’ intent.

Examples:

• If three men decide to rob a shop and one shoots the cashier, all are guilty of robbery and murder if there was common intention.
• If two persons chase the victim and one stabs while the other blocks the exit, both may be liable.

How Courts Infer Common Intention:

The court considers

• Timing and planning
• Division of roles
• Use of weapons
• Escape plans
• Statements made during the act

Difference Between Res Gestae and Common Intention

Judicial Principles from Legal Commentaries

Legal commentaries provide clarity on how courts interpret these sections:

• Spontaneous declarations or cries made during a traumatic event are treated as truthful because they are instinctive reactions, not calculated responses.
• Common intention is inferred from the totality of facts, and even silent approval or passive presence may be enough in some cases.
• Conduct like fleeing from the scene, providing false alibis, or disposing of weapons are used by courts to infer guilty knowledge and intention.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Res Gestae under Section 4 and the evidence of common intention under Section 8 are cornerstones of modern Indian evidence law, especially in criminal cases. They allow courts to:

• Accept spontaneous, circumstantial, and behavioral evidence,
• Fill gaps in direct evidence,
• Ensure that justice is not defeated by technical exclusions.