‘A’ begins assaulting ‘B’. ‘C’ and ‘D’ begin shouting that ‘A’ is assaulting ‘B’. Decide whether the utterances of ‘C’ and ‘D’ are relevant facts.

Facts of the Case

• ‘A’ began assaulting ‘B’.
• During the assault, C and D, who were present nearby, shouted that ‘A’ is assaulting ‘B’.
• The incident was witnessed by others, and the utterances of C and D were recorded or intended to be used in evidence.
• The prosecution intends to use the utterances of C and D as evidence to prove the assault by ‘A’.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the statements made by C and D during the assault are relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
2. Whether such utterances can be considered part of the transaction (res gestae) or as hearsay evidence?
3. Whether the utterances of bystanders can corroborate the act of assault and the identity of the accused?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements

A. Relevance of Statements Made During a Transaction – Section 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 6 provides:

Facts which form part of the same transaction are relevant, even if they are contemporaneous statements or actions.

• The shouting by C and D occurred simultaneously with the assault, forming part of the res gestae.
• Res gestae includes words, gestures, or acts that accompany the main act, and are part of the same transaction, making them admissible.

B. Distinction from Hearsay Evidence

• Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible (Sections 59–60).
• However, utterances made during the commission of a crime to explain or accompany the act are exceptions under Section 6.
• Statements of C and D identify the act and the perpetrator, and are not mere second-hand information.

C. Judicial Precedents

1. Queen-Empress v. Chinai (1890)
   • Words or gestures accompanying a criminal act are admissible as part of the transaction.
2. R. v. Bedingfield (1879)
   • Shouts and exclamations during a crime may be treated as relevant evidence.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Pathrikar (1973)
   • Statements made by bystanders during the incident may corroborate the main act and are admissible under Section 6.

D. Application to Present Case

• The utterances of C and D (“A is assaulting B”) were made contemporaneously with the assault, forming part of the res gestae.
• They are relevant facts under Section 6, as they help establish:
  1. The commission of the assault.
  2. The identity of the assailant.
  3. The nature and timing of the incident.
• Such utterances may be used to corroborate direct evidence of the assault.

Possible Judgement

The Court is likely to hold that:

1. The utterances of C and D are relevant facts under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. They form part of the same transaction (res gestae) and are admissible as evidence.
3. These utterances help establish the commission of the assault and the identity of ‘A’ as the perpetrator.
4. While the utterances themselves are secondary evidence, they corroborate the primary act and can be relied upon by the court.

Final Conclusion

Yes, the shouts and statements made by C and D during the assault are relevant facts under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They form part of the same transaction (res gestae) and are admissible to prove the assault and the identity of the assailant.

About lawgnan

If you want to understand complex legal concepts like res gestae, admissibility of evidence, and witness statements in criminal cases, then visit Lawgana.in, your trusted digital legal resource. At Lawgana, we simplify the Indian Evidence Act, court judgments, and procedural rules through expert-written explanations tailored for students, aspirants, and legal professionals. Whether you’re preparing for exams, drafting legal arguments, or enhancing your litigation skills, Lawgana gives you accurate, reliable, and easy-to-understand legal insights. Stay updated with key case laws, legal principles, and answer-writing guidance. Explore more at Lawgana.in — India’s fast-growing legal knowledge hub.