Assignment

In

The Law of Evidence

Case Comment on

R V. BEDINGFIELD [1879]14 Cox C.C. 341

Submitted by

DESHNA JAIN

Roll No: 90
Sap id: 500048329
Case Comment on

R V. BEDINGFIELD [1879]14 Cox C.C. 341

FACTS OF THE CASE

A girl was living with her boyfriend until the relationship turned sour. The boyfriend
allegedly cut her throat. Even with a cut throat she managed to run out of the room
where she had been injured and shortly before she died said, “Oh dear Aunt, see what
Harry (Bedingfield) has done to me”.

ISSUE INVOLVED

Whether the statement of the girl could be admitted in evidence?

DECISION OF THE COURT

Lord Justice Cockburn held that the statement was not admissible, since it was
something stated by her after it was all over. He said that it was not part of the
transaction, that it was said after the transaction was all over, the transaction being the
cutting of the throat.

“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 a dying declaration because she did
not have the time to reflect that she was dying.
QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED
SECTION 6- RELEVANCY OF FACTS FORMING PART OF SAME
TRANSACTION-

DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the principle of Res Gestae.X

The principle of the section is that whenever a “transaction” such as a contract or a crime,
is a fact in issue,2 then evidence can be given of every fact which forms part of the same
transaction.X

6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transactionFacts 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.

Illustrations

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 or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

A is accused of waging war against the 11[ Government of India] by taking part in an armed
insurrection in which property is destroyed troops are attacked and goals 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.

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.
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 in issue" – The expression "facts in issue" means and includes –

any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence,
nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied on any suit or proceeding,
necessarily follows.

Explanation - Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil
Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such
issue is a fact in issue.

Illustrations
The facts which surround the happening of an event are its Resgestae. The section is
based upon the English doctrine of Res Gestae.

RES GESTAE

The phrase Res Gestae is Latin which literally means “things done” and when
translated to English means, “things said and done in the course of a transaction”.

SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE

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 part of the transaction and the evidence of it
should be received.

A is accused of the murder of B.

At his trial the following facts may be in issue:-

That caused A B’s death;

That A intended to cause Bs’ death;

That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;

That A, at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind,
incapable of knowing its nature
“To state 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”.3X

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

It enables the court to take into account all the essential details of a transaction.4X

A transaction can be truly understood only when all its integral parts are known and not in
isolation from each other. “It may be arbitrary and artificial to confine the evidence to the
firing of the gun or the insertion of the knife without knowing, in broader sense, what was
happening. In O’Leary v Regem5, where evidence was admitted of assaults prior to a killing,
committed by the accused during what was said to be a continuous orgy. Dixon J, stated as
follows:X

“The evidence disclosed that, under the influence of the beer and wine had drunk and
continued to drink, he engaged in repeated acts of violence which might be regarded as
amounting to a connected course of conduct. Without evidence of what, during that time,
was done by those men who took any significant part in the matter and especially evidence
of the behavior of the

prisoner, the transaction of which the alleged murder formed an integral part could not be
truly

3 Peter Murphy, A Practical Approach to Evidence, 10 (4th Edn, 1992) quoted by Dr. Avatar Singh in
Principles of The Law of Evidence, p.43

4 “A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name as

a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue”-Stephen, Digest
of Evidence Art. P.3 “Roughly a transaction may be described as any physical act or series of
connected physical acts together with the words accompanying such act or acts”. – Phipson, cited
Cockel’s Cases and Statutes on Evidence, p. 65

5 Ratten v Reginam (1971) 3 All E R 801 at p 806

understood and isolated from it. The prisoner’s generally violent and hostile conduct might
well serve to explain his mind and attitude and therefore to implicate him in the resulting
homicide.”

It helps to determine the admissibility of statements relating to existence of some act, event
or state of affairs which is in issue.

An exception to the hearsay rule.

ACTS OR OMISSIONS AS RES GESTAE

Nature of the transaction itself indicates what should be its essential parts. Where for
example, there is a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of India by force, funds for
the purpose are raised at Calcatta, arms and ammunition at Madras and the task force is
trained at Bombay. All these acts, though isolated in time and space are still the parts of the
same transaction This is true of all transactions which are continuing nature.

Similarly 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 part of the
transaction. If libel is contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence, the whole
correspondence is relevant.
STATEMENTS AS RESGESTAE

Statements may also accompany physical happenings. An injured person for example, is
naturally bound to cry. He may cry under pain or for help or spell out the name and description
of his attacker. If the transaction, eg, an accident happened in a public place, a number of
by-standers will make mutual conversation about the incident. The question is to what
extent such statements can be regarded as parts of the transaction.

ILLUSTRATION

A man has killed another by beating him. Whatever was said or done by the offender and
the deceased 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.

In the application of this principle the courts have been very strict and cautious. For,
statement 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.

The result is that there are numerous cases in which such evidence has been admitted and
numerous cases in which evidence of statements has been rejected and there is room for a
sharp difference of opinion.

CASES

Thompson v Trevanion6- court held, “that what the wife said immediately upon hurt being
received and before that she had time to devise or contrive anything for her own
advantage, might be given in evidence.” If sufficient time elapsed to allow the invention of
a false tale obviously the evidence would be unreliable.X

R v Christie7- The case was that of an indecent assault 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 upon the reasoning
that theX
6 (1695) Skin 402

7 (1914) AC 545
boy’s statement was so separated by time and circumstances from the actual commission
of the crime.

R v Gibson8,- the words spoken by an out looker after the assault was over were not
regarded as part of Res gestae.X

Ratten v Queen9- 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 to say:
“GetX

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.

R M Malkani v State of Maharashtra10- court held that a contemporaneous tape-record of a

relevant conversation is a relevant fact, and is res gestae.X

R v Foste11r - the prisoner was charged with manslaughter in killing a person by driving over
him. A witness saw the vehicle driven by at a very rapid rate, but did not see the accident. X

Immediately after, on hearing the victim groan, he went up to him and asked him what was
the matter. The deceased then made a statement as to the cause of the injury.

The court held that “what the deceased said at the instant, so as to the cause of the
accident, is clearly admissible”.
8 (1887) 18 QBD 537

9 Ibid 5

10 (1973) 1 SCC 471

11 (1834) 6 C & P 172 E R 1261

Chander Kala v Ram Kishan12- the complainant’s conduct in narrating the incident to her
colleagues was held to be not a part of the transaction of extortion, but was relevant under
S. 157(former statement as corroboration of subsequent testimony)X

Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v State of AP13, court held that “if there is an interval however
slight, was sufficient for creating scope for fabrication, the statement is no part of res
gestae.X

TEST OF RES GESTAE

Court often differ with respect to the consideration of interval of time between the
statement and the occurrence of the incident. Where in the cases where the court took a
rigid stand, the reasoning was based on the following rules:

STRICT RULE OF RES GESTAE

The words should be atleast 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.

There must be a close association in time, place and circumstances between the statements
and the crucial events.

However these rule were relaxed in some later judgments on the reason that it is often
difficult to decide how slight a separation of time and place may suffice to make the
statement a different “res” rather than a part of the same transaction.

The more relaxed rules of Res gestae are as follows:

12 AIR 1985 SC 1268

13 6 SCC 241, AIR 1996 SC 2791

RES GESTAE RELAXED

In cases where it seems difficult to establish whether the making of the statement was in
some sense part of the event or transaction, the strict rule of res gestae must be relaxed.

In such cases, the elapse of time between the events and the speaking of words and
differences in location must not be the decisive criteria in determining the application of res
gestae.

Where statement is made after the event, the judge must satisfy himself that the statement is
so clearly made in circumstances of spontaneity.

Where the statement is made by way of narrative of a detached prior event , so that the
speaker was disengaged from it as to be able to construct or adapt his account, the judge
should exclude such statements.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case clearly establish that the statement of the deceased forms the part of
the same transaction.

She ran out the same instant that she was injured and the aunt was the first person she met
with.
The time elapsed before making such statement is so negligible to imagine that she was
deliberately concocting a story in order to hold Hary liable.

The reasoning of the Cockburn C.J seemed to be contradictory. If she did not have the time
to reflect that she was dying, much less did she have the time to concoct a story.
CONCLUSION

The res gestae doctrine has often been criticized. According to Professor Stone14, “no
evidential problem is so shrouded in doubt and confusion. The rule is not only useless
but also harmful. It is useless because every part of it is covered by some other rule,
for example declarations as to the state of mind or health. It is harmful because it
causes confusion about the limitations of other rules. The precise limits of res gestae
are themselves not easy to define. Facts differ so greatly that no fixed principle can be
laid down as to matters that will form parts of a transaction. However the acts,
circumstances, and statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated
matter and are admissible in evidence in view of their relevant association with that
fact. Reception of such facts as evidence shed light upon the act or event in issue, in
its absence, the transaction in question may not be fully or truly understood and may
even appear to be meaningless, inexplicable and unintelligible.X

In the present case Cockburn CJ seemed to have overlooked, thus failed to appreciate
the nuances of the doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

14 Res Gestae Reagitata, (1939) 55 LQR 66

· Dr. Avatar Sing, “The Principles of the Law of Evidence, central law publications,

Allahabad