Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 4
Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact 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) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) A 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 jails 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
Why this exists
This rule (commonly called the doctrine of 'res gestae') exists because rigidly limiting evidence to only the precise disputed moment would give courts an artificial, incomplete picture. Real events unfold over time and involve surrounding words, actions, and circumstances that give context and meaning to the central fact. The provision, carried forward from Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, lets courts see the whole continuous transaction rather than an artificially isolated snapshot, so that spontaneous statements, connected acts, and linked events can help establish the truth.
How courts read it
Indian courts have long interpreted this provision (as Section 6 of the old Evidence Act) through the lens of 'proximity and continuity' rather than strict time gaps. In cases like Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, courts held that statements made shortly after an incident, even by a person not a direct witness to the act itself, could be treated as part of the same transaction if they were spontaneous and closely connected in time and circumstance, and thus admissible independent of exceptions to hearsay. The consistent judicial theme is that the connection must be so close that the facts form one continuous story, not merely be related in a loose or general sense.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only the exact act being judged (like the punch or the letter) can be used as evidence.
Fact: Facts closely connected to that act — happening just before, during, or after, or as part of the same chain of events — can also be treated as relevant evidence under this provision. - Myth: Facts must happen at the exact same time and place to be part of the same transaction.
Fact: The provision explicitly says facts can be relevant 'whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places,' as long as they are closely connected to form one transaction.