Section 4 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction

Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Fact Sec 2(1)(d) Fact In Issue Sec 2(1)(e)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 4

Section 4 codifies the foundational doctrine of Res Gestae, declaring that facts forming part of the same transaction are relevant even if they occurred at different times and places.

Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: Section 4 (re-enacting Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) establishes that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time.
Core Legal Standard: Section 4 of the BSA establishes that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue 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.

Section 4 codifies the doctrine of res gestae, admitting spontaneous contemporaneous acts and declarations that form part of the same transaction to establish factual continuity.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P. (1996) 6 SCC 241: Held that the principle of Res Gestae under Section 6 IEA / Section 4 BSA requires that the statement must be spontaneous and contemporaneous with the event, leaving no interval for fabrication or deliberation.
Sukhar v. State of U.P. (1999) 9 SCC 507: Affirmed that an exclamation made by a witness immediately upon hearing gunshots formed part of the same transaction and was admissible as substantive evidence under Res Gestae.

Legal Commentary:

Section 4 is an indispensable exception to the rule against hearsay. Spontaneous bystander reactions, screams of victims during an assault, and immediate post-incident cries are admissible because human instinct under shock precludes premeditated falsehood.