Hearsay Statements Made Contemporaneously With Act Or Immediately Thereafter Admissible Under Section 6 Evidence...
🔹 Understanding Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence generally refers to a statement made out of court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
It is usually inadmissible because the declarant is not present for cross-examination, raising issues about reliability and truthfulness.
🔹 Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 6 provides an exception to the general rule against hearsay. It states:
“Statements made by a person who is dead or cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable, are relevant facts if the statements were made by such person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of his death comes into question.”
Though originally dealing with statements relating to cause of death, courts have extended Section 6 in principle to statements made contemporaneously or immediately after an event.
🔹 Rationale Behind Section 6 Exception
The assumption is that statements made contemporaneously with the event or immediately after are spontaneous and less likely to be fabricated or influenced.
They carry a degree of reliability since there is no time to concoct a story.
Such statements help the court understand the circumstances of the transaction or act.
🔹 Hearsay Statements Made Contemporaneously or Immediately After Act
Statements made at the time of the occurrence or immediately thereafter are admissible as exceptions to hearsay, even if the declarant is not present.
This rule is sometimes called the “res gestae” principle, which allows certain statements closely connected in time and place with the main act to be admissible.
🔹 Distinction From Other Hearsay Exceptions
Dying declarations (Section 32(1)) are a type of hearsay admissible because of the solemnity and improbability of fabrication when facing imminent death.
Section 6 applies more broadly to statements explaining the circumstances surrounding the act, not just cause of death.
The key factor: statement must be immediate or contemporaneous with the act.
🔹 Important Case Laws on Section 6 and Contemporaneous Statements
1. Ram Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620
Facts: Statement made by deceased about the circumstances leading to his death.
Held: Statement made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter is admissible as evidence under Section 6.
Principle: Emphasized the importance of spontaneity and immediacy.
2. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 549
Held: Statements made contemporaneously with an act can be admitted under Section 6 as relevant facts.
The court observed that the circumstances of the transaction are relevant to the cause of death and these statements form part of it.
3. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
Held: Statements made immediately after the act, even if they are hearsay, are admissible under Section 6.
The court accepted that such statements have high evidentiary value.
4. Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 1
This case reiterated that statements made contemporaneously with the act cannot be ignored as hearsay and must be admitted as relevant facts.
5. K.K Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 722
The Supreme Court observed that statements made by a person who is now unavailable but which explain the circumstances around a crucial act may be admitted under Section 6.
🔹 Practical Examples of Application
A victim’s exclamation or explanation during or immediately after being attacked.
A bystander’s spontaneous description of an event immediately after it occurs.
Statements explaining how an accident or crime happened, made right after the event.
🔹 Limitations and Safeguards
The statement must be made very close in time to the act or transaction.
If the statement is made after a significant time lapse, the reliability diminishes and may not qualify.
Courts assess whether the statement relates directly to the circumstances of the transaction and is not merely an opinion or narrative.
🔹 Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| General Rule | Hearsay statements are inadmissible |
| Exception under Section 6 | Statements about cause of death or circumstances made by unavailable declarant are admissible |
| Contemporaneous Statements | Statements made at or immediately after act are admissible as relevant facts |
| Key Factor | Spontaneity and immediacy ensure reliability |
| Judicial Principle | Such statements form part of the transaction (res gestae) |
| Case Law Examples | Ram Prasad, Bhagwan Singh, Mohan Lal |
RELATED Blog
0 comments