Facts which form part of the same transaction or which are the occasion cause or effect of facts in issue of which show motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct are relevant. Explain & Illustrate

Evidence is an important source of finding out the truth and solution to the disputed subjects. The quality of evidence is important in respect of disputed subjects. 

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given of fact in issue and relevant fact described under S. 6 states:
Not everything holds value in the court of law, only certain events and physical or abstract that is brought to court’s notice, legal means, hold relevancy. Every event is a fact in itself and is made up of several facts. The law of evidence was developed to chalk out the rule and principles to prove “facts”

“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 of at different times and places.”

Section 6 
 Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction.—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. 

According to Stephens – Transaction is group of those acts or facts which combine with each other so that they are known by the same legal name, like – crime, breach of contract etc. 

                                                                                  RES GESTAE (the things done)
•    Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
•    Res Gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation during an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding upon hearing by someone else and thus the court believes that such statement carries a high degree of credibility. 
Example - 
A Young woman(Witness) standing on the side of the main road. She sees some hue and cry across the street. On the opposite side of the road she sees an old man shout ‘the bank is being robbed!’ The old man is never found and so he can’t appear in court and repeat what he said. But the woman repeats what she heard him say. Such a statement would be considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence because the statement was made concurrently with the event and there is little chance that the witness repeating the hearsay could have misunderstood its meaning or the speaker’s intentions. 

Jantela V Rao Vs State of A.P – A bus was burnt and several people have been injured. They were sent to the hospital and their statements were recorded by Magistrate. These statements cannot be considered to be part of the same transaction, because the statement was made after a long time of the incident.  
 
Section 7. Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.
Facts which are occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which allowed their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Section 8. Motive preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, about such suit or proceeding, or about any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Motive
Facts that show a motive for any facts in issue or relevant facts are relevant. The only condition is that the motive considered should be of the man who commits the crime. In R VS Palmer, the accused borrowed large sums of money from his deceased friend to pay his dues. The deceased died because of poisoning in a hotel, after coming back from a race they both attended. Since the accused had a strong motive to kill him, he was held liable. If a certain motive can be assigned, its adequacy is not questioned, only its existence is enough to prove concerned facts. In Murarilal Sharma VS State of Maharashtra it was held that where a fact can strongly link accused to the fact in issue, motive plays a secondary role. And while, when considering circumstances evidence, evidence of motive plays the fundamental role. 

Preparation 
Preparation in itself is no crime, but when accompanied with an offense committed thereof, it becomes relevant. Illustration (c) to Section 8 provides: “A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.” Here, procuring poison is no crime but when the poison is administered to murder B, it becomes relevant. 

Conduct 
Guilty mind begets guilty conduct. Conduct is taken as evidence because it is always guided, before or after, by what one has done. The conduct should be such which is affected by the facts or affects the facts. It doesn’t include statements until these statements are associated with conduct. Considering the leading case of the queen – empress Vs Abdullah, the fact of which are: Abdullah had murdered a prostitute, aged between 15 and 20 years. He had slit her throat with a razor but the girl helped identify him by her conduct which was her hand gestures agreeing to the question asked. The defendant pleaded that this amounted to a statement but the learned judge held it be subsequent conduct and prosecuted Abdullah for her murder.