Transaction

A group of facts together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract,

a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.

And accordingly, the test to determine whether certain facts form part of the same
transaction is whether they are so related to each other in terms of purpose or as cause
and effect or as to constitute one continuous action.

The case of Ratten v. Queen is an illustration on the point.

Here a man was charged with the murder of his wife. He defended himself in the
court saying that the shot went off accidentally. However, there was evidence to show
that the deceased wife contacted the telephone operator and said, “Get me the police
please”. But before the operator could connect call to the police the lady who spoke in
distress gave her address and then the call ended suddenly. Thereafter the police went
to the address so given and found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the
accused.

Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgement explained:

The act of the deceased of calling the telephone operator and the words said by her on
the call are relevant facts here as they form part of the same transaction which is in
issue before the court.

And on the basis of these facts the accused was convicted for murder as no victim of
an accident can even think of calling the police and ask for help before the happening.
Her call in distress clearly showed that the shooting in question was intentional rather
than being accidental.

Illustrations under section 6:

(i) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A
or B or by the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it, so as to form
part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
The Time and Space

Section 6 makes an express mention that it is not necessary the facts have occurred at
the same time and place in order that they form part of the transaction in issue.

This is so because no limitation can be imposed as to the length of time over which a
transaction should extend. A transaction may get completed in a moment or may
extend to days, months or even years. Similarly, no restriction can be applied as to the
territory within which the transaction must take place, those like a sudden quarrel or
shooting or stabbing may occur even in a room while those like a rebellion may cover
an entire country. For example, where a conspiracy is entered into by certain people to
overthrow the government by force and for this purpose funds are collected at a place
B, task force is trained at a place C and the arms are collected at a place D. All these
acts are part of the same transaction though not occurring at the same places and time

A similar illustration is also attached to section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

A is accused of waging war against the government of India by taking part in an

armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and the gaols
are broken open. All these occurrences form part of the same transaction though A
may not be present at all of them.

Acts as Res Gestae

As mentioned earlier in the case of Ratten v. Queen, the act of the deceased wife of
calling the telephone operator and asking to connect her to the police, was res gestae.

An illustration attached to section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also illustrates
the point:

Where the question is whether certain goods were delivered in the performance of a
contract, the fact that they were delivered to several intermediaries in the process of
ultimate delivery to the buyer, is relevant, each successive delivery being a part of the
transaction.

In the case of Sabir v. State of Rajasthan the witnesses reached the place of
occurrence of crime and saw the accused fleeing away from there and thus chased him
and eventually caught him in a situation where he was found with a blood-stained
shirt, pent and shoes and was trying to wash them in the pond nearby. These facts are
relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they form part of the
same transaction.

Omissions as Res Gestae

It is not only an act that can be the part of a transaction but omissions too can be the
same.

The case of Milne v. Leisler [iv] is an illustration on the point.

Here the question was whether a contract was made by the defendant in his personal
capacity or as an agent for the plaintiff. The facts of the case of the case were that the
defendant had been the agent of plaintiff for quite a long time. And thus, the
confidence reposed by the plaintiff in defendant was so high that defendant would
enter into contracts on his behalf without even consulting him, if he found them to be
beneficial. And the plaintiff never objected to this conduct of the defendant. But since
the contract in question proved to be disadvantageous to him, the plaintiff denied to
consider it maintaining that it was entered into by the defendant without his
permission and personal capacity.

Here, the omission of the plaintiff to raise an objection against the conduct of the
defendant on several previous instances was held to be res gestae. And on this basis
the Court found the plaintiff to be bound by the contract in question as the defendant
had an implied authority to enter into contracts on his behalf even without consulting
him, in case he found them to be advantageous.

Statements as Res Gestae

The statements which accompany physical happenings are also considered as a part of
the transaction. For example, an injured person crying under pain or for help. The
case of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar [v] is a leading case on the point.

Here a husband, his father and mother were prosecute for the murder of his wife.
There were evidence to show that she cried out for help and also screamed out that
she was being killed by the accused persons. Also, the children who were playing
outside exclaimed that their mother was being killed.

These statement of the deceased as well as of the children were held to be relevant as
res gestae.

Another important point highlighted by the decision of this case is that apart from the
statements of the victim, the statements of bystanders who saw the happening are also
relevant. And the statements of the person doing the act are relevant as well. For
example, if A assaults B on the neck with a knife and this is seen by C who exclaims,
B is killing A, is relevant as res gestae. It is as much a part of the transaction of
murder as the gushing out of blood from the wound, the only difference being that the
latter is a physical reaction to the act while the former is a psychological reaction by
perception.
Another important case on the point is of Thompson v. Trevanian

Here the deceased woman came running out of the house with a wound on her neck
from which she was bleeding and cried out that her husband had caused the injury.
This statement of the wife was held to be relevant as res gestae.

However, the case of R v. Beddingfield [vii], a case with similar facts presents a
different point of view.

Here, a woman with a cut throat came running out of a house. She was crying
continuously but did not say a word about how the injury was caused. However, as
soon as her aunt came she told her, O Aunt, see what Beddingfield has done to me.

Cockburn C.J., delivering the judgement explained:

Such statements in order that they may be admissible as res gestae should be
contemporaneous with the transaction in issue, so as to give no time/opportunity for
concoction or fabrication. The statements should not amount to a mere of a past
occurrence.

Thus, simply the statements should be forced out of emotions generated by the even
rather than be a narrative of a past event, they should be made in circumstances of
spontaneity or involvement in the event.

Lastly, the Indian case of Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh presents a
different example in this regard.

Here, shortly before the incident in which a woman died of a gunshot, she exclaimed
that a man was standing near her with a gun in his hand. The statement was held to be
res gestae and thus, relevant.

Hearsay as Res Gesate

The doctrine of res gestae is one of the exceptions to the principle of hearsay.

Hearsay evidence refers to the statement by a person who has not himself seen the
happening of the transaction, but has heard about it from others. For example, a
person who has himself witnessed an accident can give evidence of it to the court. But
his wife who heard about the accident from him, cannot give evidence of it to the
court, her knowledge being indirect or hearsay.
But under the doctrine of Res Gestae hearsay is also admissible.

For example, in the case of R v. Foster the deceased was killed in an accident by a
speeding truck. The witness had only seen the speeding vehicle towards the deceased
and not the actual accident, his view being blocked by another vehicle coming from
the opposite direction. Immediately after the accident the witness went to the
deceased and he explained to him the nature of the accident.

The witness was allowed to give evidence of what the deceased said, it being a part of
the transaction.

In another case of Badruddin v. State of Maharashtra the accused dragged the

deceased from his house to Chowk area and began to beat him. Z who was present
when the beating began ran to the village police patel, while the beating was in
progress and told him that the deceased was being beaten by the accused. The police
Patel was allowed to give evidence of what Z told him, it being a part of the
transaction.

motive

The word motive means “the reason behind the act or conduct or an
act.”Salmond describes motive as “the ulterior intent.” It may be
good or bad. It is something that prompts a person to act in a certain
way or that determines volition.

motive is what makes a man do a particular act or act in aparticular way.

For example; a person who is accused of rape may be motivatedby lust
or desire. A person who says they killed in self-defence will
be motivated by fear. Motive influences a person’s acts for every
voluntary act and it is often proved by the conduct of a person. However,
mere existence of a motive is not at all incriminating, neither need for
the motive be adequate.Many people may entertain the temptation to
steal at supermarkets, but never actually do so; it is therefore not an
offence to have a motive to steal. In our present context, motive is an
inference drawn from the facts. A man who is badly in debt without a
proper income may lead to an inference that he had motive to steal.
Motive cannot always be shown directly. It has to be inferred from the
facts and circumstantial evidence. When motive is relevant, evidence
tending to show its existence is usually admissible subject to
exclusion if the risk of unfair prejudice is too great.

Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, whether based on

testimony ofthe eye witness or circumstantial evidence. Motive
alone is not sufficient evidence to establish that the crime in
question has been committed by a particular person. When one has
a reason to act in a certain way, it is just as easy and accurate to state that
the person had a motive to act in a certain way as it is to state that the
person developed the “intent” to behave that way or developed a “plan”
to do so.

Conduct
Conduct of a person or his agent is relevant if it is
reference to a suit or proceeding, or the conduct is in reference to
any fact in issue in the suit or proceeding or is relevant thereto. For
example, if either before or after an alleged crime with which an
accused is charged, the accused destroyed evidence or procured absence
of persons who might have been witnesses or asked people to give false
testimony evidence as to such conduct is admissible as a relevant to a fact
in issue the commission of the alleged crime.