B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2022 Oct Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: the meaning of "transaction" and the Latin res gestae; section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in its words; its four illustrations, each showing a different kind of connection (time, a general transaction, correspondence, a chain of deliveries); the tests a court uses to decide whether facts form one transaction (proximity of time, unity of place, continuity of action, community of purpose); statements as part of the transaction and the rule of contemporaneity (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao, Sukhar); the limits, and the contrast with section 32(1) (Pakala); sections 7 and 8 as neighbours; section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.

The idea

A fact in issue rarely happens alone. A murder has a quarrel before it, cries during it, and a flight after it. These surrounding facts are not themselves in issue. But without them the court sees only a frozen moment and cannot understand what happened. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lets them in. Lawyers call them the res gestae, Latin for "things done".

(b) One general transaction. A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection. Property is destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. These facts are relevant as part of the general transaction, "though A may not have been present at all of them".

(c) A correspondence. A sues B for a libel in a letter. Other letters between them on the same subject, forming part of the same correspondence, are relevant, though they do not contain the libel.

(d) A chain. The question is whether goods ordered from B were delivered to A. They passed through several intermediate persons. "Each delivery is a relevant fact."

Tests for one transaction

Courts ask four questions.

1. Proximity of time. Were the facts close in time to the fact in issue?
2. Unity or proximity of place. Did they happen at or near the same place?
3. Continuity of action. Was there one continuous course of conduct?
4. Community of purpose or design. Were the acts done for one common object?

Facts. In Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 9 SCC 507, a man was shot near a sugarcane field. A witness heard the shot and ran to the spot. The wounded man told him at once that his nephew had shot him.

Held. The statement was made almost at the same moment as the shot, with no time to invent. It was admitted under section 6. But the Court still examined whether the witness was reliable. He was hostile to the accused, and none of the more than twenty others present was examined. The accused was acquitted.

So admissibility under section 6 and weight are separate questions.

The limits of section 6

1. A narrative is not res gestae. A story told after the event is over, however soon, is hearsay if there was time to reflect.
2. The fact must connect with a fact in issue, not with any fact in the case.
3. Section 6 does not make reliable what is unreliable. The court still weighs the evidence (Sukhar).

Conclusion. Section 6 of the 1872 Act makes relevant facts so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction. They may occur at the same or different times and places. The illustrations show connection in time, in a general transaction, in a correspondence and in a chain. Courts look at proximity of time and place, continuity of action and community of purpose. Statements are part of the transaction only if made at the time or immediately after, with no time to fabricate (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao). Even then the court weighs them (Sukhar). Section 4 of the Adhiniyam keeps the rule and widens it to facts connected with a relevant fact.