In the case of R v Foster, a witness saw a vehicle driving at high speed in the direction of the victim but did not actually see the moment of the accident. After the accident occurred, the victim who was visibly in shock spoke to the witness and described what had happened.
Issue Before the Court
The main legal issue in this case was whether the victim’s statement, made shortly after the accident while still in a state of shock, could be accepted as evidence in court.
Legal Principle of Res Gestae
The concept behind this rule comes from English law and is known as the doctrine of res gestae, which is a Latin term meaning “things done.” In simpler terms, it includes things said or done as part of a single continuous event or transaction. The idea is that when a transaction or incident is the main issue in a case, then any statement or act that naturally forms a part of that transaction can be admitted as evidence. Even though the phrase "res gestae" is not directly mentioned in Indian law, this principle is now formally covered under Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This section allows certain statements or facts that are part of the same transaction to be included in evidence even if they are technically hearsay because they are so closely connected to the main event that they help explain it.
Analysis of the court
In the case of R v Foster, the court allowed a victim’s statement to be used as evidence because it was part of what’s called the res gestae—a legal principle that lets certain statements made during or immediately after an event be used in court, even though they would usually be blocked under the hearsay rule.
The reasoning was based on three main points. First, the victim made the statement spontaneously, right after the accident, which made it unlikely that they had time to lie or change the story. Second, the timing of the statement was very close to the incident itself, making it more trustworthy. And third, the victim was still in shock when speaking, which meant they weren’t calm enough to make something up deliberately. These factors convinced the court that the statement was reliable and directly connected to the event.
The rule of law from this case is that under the doctrine of res gestae, some out-of-court statements can be allowed in court even though the person who made them isn't there to be cross-examined. Normally, that would go against the hearsay rule, but R vs. Foster shows that there are exceptions when the statements are closely tied to the event and seem trustworthyy.
Concluding Remark
Overall, R v Foster is an important case for law students to understand how courts can admit certain statements as exceptions to hearsay. Still, it's not always a clear-cut rule. Courts look at things like how soon the statement was made, the emotional or mental state of the person, and the context in which it was said. It shows how flexible but careful the application of res gestae can be.
