Relevance vs Res Gestae: when does 'relevant' become 'same transaction' evidence?
evidence clat_ug advanced doubtYaar samajh nahi aaya! I'm still confused about the difference between relevance and res gestae in Evidence Act, 1872. Both seem to overlap, but then again, they're different concepts altogether. Take the example of a witness testifying about a conversation they overheard during an incident (same transaction evidence). Is this not considered relevant to the case? But then, isn't res gestae just another way of saying the same thing? Please help me understand when to draw the line between the two. I've read the sections (34 & 6) multiple times, but it's still hazy. Any help will be super appreciated!
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
"Bro, this is the million-rupee question. According to our Hon'ble SC, 'res gestae' (same transaction evidence) is a sub-set of 'relevant' evidence, but the catch is, it needs to be so connected that if one part of the transaction is allowed, the other part will have to be allowed too. So, when does it become the same transaction? When there's a continuity of events, motive or circumstances. Koi example, agar someone kills someone, and immediately after, they set fire to the house to destroy evidence...