Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court

"Section 6 of the Evidence Act makes relevant those facts which, though not themselves in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, whether such facts occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places." Madras High Court, in a latest judgment, held that hearsay evidence, which would otherwise be inadmissible, can be admitted under the doctrine of res gestae as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided the statement is made contemporaneously with the occurrence without any appreciable interval for fabrication.

A bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice K. Rajasekar observed that where the proximity in time and space between the incident and the utterance is established, such evidence forms part of the same continuous transaction.

The case involved four accused persons charged with the murder of the deceased over a land lease dispute. While the prosecution relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses and an extra-judicial confession, the defense contended that the night-time occurrence rendered the identification unreliable and argued that the extra-judicial confession was coerced as the accused were already in police custody.

The primary question before the court was whether the testimony of witnesses who arrived immediately after the incident and heard the victim's brother name the assailant constituted admissible evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court was also called upon to determine the reliability of an extra-judicial confession recorded when the accused were purportedly already in custody.

Application of Res Gestae

 The Court emphasized that the essential test for applying the doctrine of res gestae is the existence of a close and proximate nexus between the occurrence and the statement sought to be proved. Referencing precedents like Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the bench noted that the statement must be a spontaneous reaction to the event.

Court Explains Scope Of Section 6

The court found that witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.6 had reached the spot immediately upon hearing noise and were informed by the eyewitness P.W.1 about the specific assailant. Because there was no long interval allowing for deliberation, tutoring, or embellishment, their evidence was treated as part of the same continuous transaction.

"The rationale underlying Section 6 is the spontaneity and immediacy of the statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue."

Rejection of Extra-Judicial Confession

Regarding the extra-judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, the court held it to be unreliable. Since multiple witnesses confirmed that the police had already taken the accused into custody on the previous night, the confession lost its evidentiary value.

Court Rules On Evidence Reliability

The bench underscored that when ocular testimony is available, it takes precedence over the motive for the crime. While the court accepted the testimony of independent villagers who witnessed the assault, it noted that the medical evidence only corroborated the specific injuries attributed to the primary accused (A1), leading to the acquittal of the other co-accused (A2-A4).

"Where a statement or fact is so closely connected with the occurrence as to constitute a part of the transaction itself, the same would not be excluded merely on the ground that it is technically hearsay."

The court concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of the first accused (A1) beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the criminal appeal of A1 was dismissed, while the appeals of A2, A3, and A4 were allowed, setting aside their conviction due to the lack of corroborated evidence regarding their specific overt acts.

Date of Decision: 08 September 2026