Landmark Judgement

Ratten vs. Queen, 1971

RES GESTAE: Part of Same Transaction

Privy Council·1 July 1971

Judgement Details

Court

Privy Council

Date of Decision

1 July 1971

Judges

Lord Wilberforce ⦁ Lord Reid ⦁ Lord Hodson ⦁ Lord Diplock ⦁ Lord Cross of Chelsea

Citation

1971] 3 All ER 801 at 806

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The fact of the case are that where a man was charged with the murder of his wife. He defended himself in the court saying that the shot went off accidentally.
However, there was evidence to show that the deceased wife contacted the telephone operator and said, ‘get me the police please’.
But before the operator could connect the call to the police the lady who spoke in distress gave her address and then the call ended suddenly.
Thereafter the police went to the address so given and found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused.

Issues

Whether the call done by the wife is part of same translation and deal under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Held

In this case the Lordships pointed out that the evidence of the telephonist was not a hearsay evidence and was admissible as a relevant fact i.e. as evidence that contrary to the appellant's account a call was made only some three to five minutes before the fatal shooting by a woman who could only have been the deceased; it was also relevant as possibly showing that the deceased woman was at the time in a state of emotion or fear.

Analysis

This is an English case in which a lady called the police headquarters to speak with a police officer, but the call was disconnected before she could be connected to one.
The authorities tracked out the source of the phone call and arrived at the lady's residence, only to discover she had died.
The lady's husband said that he fired a shot at his wife by accident, and she died as a result The husband was found guilty of his wife's murder, and the court also ruled that the lady's phone conversation was admissible because it was part of the same transaction.