Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John gave observation with regards to Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) which talks about Res Gestae.

• The Kerala High Court gave this judgment in the case of Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala.

What is the Background of Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala Case?

• The prosecution stated that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife as a result of a quarrel that happened between them in the course of their work.
• After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
• The appellant preferred an appeal before the Kerala HC where the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no direct witness to the occurrence and the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution is of a circumstantial nature.
  • He further said that since the prosecution has not succeeded in fully establishing the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
• However, the Public Prosecutor took note of statements given by Prosecution Witnesses (PW) including PW 1 to 3, which formed part of same transaction.
• The Public Prosecutor said before the court that Court Witness saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with knife and immediately informed PW 1 which is a relevant fact.
• However, there was a variance in the statements of PW 1 to 3 which the counsel for accused contended as hearsay evidence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Kerala HC held that variation in the evidence of PW 1 to 3 regarding the exact time of occurrence are only due to normal errors of observation and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and errors will always be there and the same cannot be accepted as material discrepancies touching the core of the case.
• Hence, the court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of appellants.

What is Legal Provision Related to Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction?

• About:
  • Section 6 of the IEA lays the foundation for understanding the admissibility of facts forming part of the same transaction known as relevant facts.
    • According to this section, facts which, though not in issue directly, are so connected with the facts in issue that they substantially affect the probability of the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue are deemed to be relevant.
  • Facts forming part of the same transaction as relevant facts are covered under Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
• Proximity in Time, Place, and Circumstances:
  • The connection between facts forming part of the same transaction must be established through proximity in time, place, and circumstances.
  • Courts assess whether the facts are so closely interwoven that they collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the entire incident.
  • As per the Section, that facts forming part of same transaction becomes relevant whether they happened at same time or place or different.
• Complete Understanding of the Transaction:
  • The objective behind considering facts forming part of the same transaction is to present a complete and coherent picture before the court.
• Illustrations in the Act:
  • 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 before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
  • P 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 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.
  • X sues Y for 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 C. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
• Exception to Hearsay Rule:
  • The general rule of evidence law is that the court does not rely on hearsay evidence which are statements given by someone who is not testifying before court.
  • The Act provides an exception to the general hearsay rule when it comes to facts forming part of the same transaction.
  • Statements made by a person as to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, or as to the existence of any community custom, are relevant when they accompany or explain acts in question.