Prajwal verdict: Not hearsay! ‘Res Gestae' rest assured survivor's victory

Time of India

3 days ago

Bengaluru: Since witness accounts aren't easy to obtain in sexual-assault cases, courts are allowed to consider, juxtapose or string together disparate events, statements or actions under less-known, but important 'Res Gestae' doctrine.
The special court that convicted Prajwal Revanna has deployed this legal reasoning under Sections 6 to 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
For the record, 'Res Gestae' is a Latin term meaning "things done". In legal context, it describes statements made spontaneously and contemporaneously with an event, considered reliable evidence because they are not the result of premeditation or fabrication. The court said the "law allows certain exceptions to the general bar on hearsay", citing Indian and English legal authorities.
The court relied on Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v State of AP (1996) to highlight that spontaneity and contemporaneous conduct or statements may fall within the ambit of this doctrine. In this context, it found admissible the behaviour of the survivor shortly after the incident and other related acts and statements.
You Can Also Check:
Bengaluru AQI
|
Weather in Bengaluru
|
Bank Holidays in Bengaluru
|
Public Holidays in Bengaluru
For instance, the court pointed to the testimony of prosecution witness 4, who noticed the survivor appearing distressed and muttering that "they cannot do anything" shortly after completing some work in the Basavanagudi house in Bengaluru.
Though minor, the court said this was relevant because it reflected the survivor's mental state immediately after the incident.
Further, prosecution witness 2, the survivor's son, testified that on the day of the 2024 parliamentary election, he heard the mother and his sister speak in hushed tones, saying they should not be caught by the police, and was asked to remain quiet. The court noted this was significant as the prosecution alleged the survivor was being hidden due to the circulation of obscene videos involving her and the accused.
The court highlighted the accused's own statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he acknowledged filing a civil suit and obtaining a stay order against the publication of such videos. This, the court said, showed that the accused was aware of the circulation of the videos before the election and had taken legal steps accordingly.
Importantly, during cross-examination of the survivor, the court noted the accused did not specifically claim the video content was morphed, but only suggested that the male in the video was not him.
The court held that this conduct, seen through the lens of 'Res Gestae', amounted to a non-denial of the video's content.
The court relied on the forensic evidence presented by prosecution witness 22, a scientific officer from the audio-video forensic section of the FSL in Bengaluru. He testified that the videos submitted for analysis showed no signs of editing or morphing. While acknowledging that their lab could not detect deepfakes with precision, the officer said frame analysis had not indicated any signs of tampering.
Drawing all of this together, the court concluded that the survivor's post-incident conduct and the accused's actions before and during the trial were relevant and admissible under the 'Res Gestae' principle. These elements, the court said, helped establish the naturalness of the survivor's behaviour and lent credibility to her account.