Ratten v Queen (Regina) 1971
Here a man was charged with the murder of his wife.
He defended himself in the court saying that the shot
went off accidentally. However, there was evidence to
show that the deceased wife contacted the telephone
operator and said, “Get me the police please”. But
before the operator could connect call to the police the
lady who spoke in distress gave her address and then
the call ended suddenly. Thereafter the police went to
the address so given and found the dead body of a
woman, that is, the wife of the accused. The privy
council held the evidence admissible, as it was part of
the same transaction.
G Vijay Vardhan Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1996
Supreme Court held that the statement to be part of
transaction it must be spontaneous and must be
contemporaneous with facts. If the statement is made
after the act is over and its maker have time to think
and reflects then it is not relevant.
Sawal Das V. State of Bihar
The cry of the children from the house when their
mother was being killed by their father became a part
of the same transaction and therefore fell under
section 6(Section 4 of BSA) and became admissible as valid evidence.
Bhaskaram vs State of Kerala 1985
The statement uttered or act done must be spontaneous
reaction of the person witnessing the crime and forming
part of the transaction. The stander by’s declaration must be
substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely
the narration of a prior event.
R versus Foster 1834
The deceased has been killed by the speeding truck the
witness had not seen the incident but only the speeding
truck the deceased stated to him what happened with him in
the incident the court held that the statement of the
deceased to the witness to be admissible as res gestae.
Regina vs Bedingfield (1879)
A woman with her throat cut came suddenly out of a
room and said to her aunt, “oh aunt see what
bedingfield has done to me”. It was held that this
statement was not admissible as she said this
statement after the act was over.
Mahendra Pal versus state 1955
The place of Murder was occupied by a number of
people other than the deceased and the eyewitness.
These other people were informed by the eye witness
of the crime. The statement of such people were held
to be admissible.
With Regards
Lawyer Talks