Sukhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999

• On the morning of the incident, while Nakkal was walking on the road,
• Sukhar caught hold of him from behind and fired a pistol shot at him.
• The incident took place on April 17, 1978, at 7:30 AM, near the Chak in village Tejalhera, district Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
• Upon hearing Nakkal’s alarm, two witnesses—Ram Kala and Pitam—reached the scene.
• Nakkal fell down, and Sukhar fled the scene.
• The witnesses (Ram Kala and Pitam) took Nakkal to the police station, where the FIR was recorded.
• The appellant, Sukhar, was charged under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) for causing injury to Nakkal.
• The Sessions Judge ruled that the FIR and the Section 161 CrPC statement of Nakkal were admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.
• The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

High Court Ruling and Reasoning:

• The FIR and the statement under Section 161 CrPC were not admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
• The statement of the injured (Nakkal) recorded under Section 161 CrPC was also not admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.

However, the High Court upheld the conviction based on:

• The testimony of PW 2 (Pitam), who stated that: As soon as he reached the scene, the injured (Nakkal) told him that Sukhar fired at him.
• The High Court considered this statement admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act (res gestae).
• Medical evidence (PW 5) confirmed the injuries, further supporting the charge under Section 307 IPC.
• The High Court of Allahabad upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which granted leave for hearing.

Whether the incident anything is considered as a part of same transaction ?

Arguments Before the Supreme Court:

Appellant’s Counsel (Ms. Sandhya Goswami) Arguments:

• The evidence of PW 2 should not be admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act because:
• The injured told the witness about the incident after the occurrence.
• The statement of the injured to PW 2 was not part of the same transaction.
• By the time PW 2 arrived, several people had gathered, meaning the information was not spontaneous but rather a narration of past events.

Respondent’s (State) Arguments:

• The firing of the shot and the injured’s statement to PW 2 were part of the same transaction, making it admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
• The High Court was justified in relying on PW 2’s testimony to convict the appellant.

The provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observing that it is an exception to the general rule where under the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. However, such evidence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter.

• The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” that it becomes relevant by itself.
• Section 6 is an exception to general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter.
• The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking, an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible.
• The rationale in making certain statements or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be a part of the same transaction.

• The victim tried to alarm that the accused will shoot him in a few minutes. On hearing the alarm the witness almost reached the place of incident. However, the victim survived and the accused was charged under section 307 of IPC (Punishment for Attempt to Murder).
• Despite the circumstances, in this case, being hearsay evidence, but still, the court recognised the act in the same part of the transaction and explained it to be a case of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Therefore the statements of the witnesses were admissible as it formed a part of the same transaction.