Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAM SUNDER YADAV & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BIHAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/1998
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.T. NANAVATI, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
The questions which have been referred to this Bench by
a two judge Bench of this Court are, whether the prosecution
is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused
in the same occurrence and whether failure of the
prosecution to so explain would mean that prosecution has
suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the
occurrence. The above questions arose in the context of
divergent views expressed in Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan
{(1979) 2 SCC 178] and Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. vs. State
of Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 95]. In the former a two judge Bench
of this Court laid down the proposition that where serious
injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a
principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory
on the prosecution so as to satisfy the Court as to the
circumstances under which the occurrence originated but
before the obligation is placed on the prosecution two
conditions must satisfied :
(i) That the injury on the person of the accused must
be very serious:
(ii) That it must be shown that these injuries must
have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.
In the other case another two judge Bench of this Court
held that it is not the law or invariable rule that whenever
the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence the
prosecution is obliged to explain the injury on the failure
of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be
disbelieved.
It has now been brought to our notice that earlier a
three judge Bench of this Court had considered the above
questions in Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors. vs. State of Assam
[(1974) 4 SCC 396] and held that the prosecution is not
obliged to explain the injuries on the person of accused in
all cases and in all circumstance sand, according to the
learned, Judges, it is not the law. The same question again
came up for consideration before another three judge Bench
of this Court in Vijayee Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P.
[(1990) 3 SCC 190] wherein it has been held as under:
" In Mohar Rai case [1968, (3) SCR
525], it is made clear that failure
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the prosecution to offer any
explanation regarding the injuries
found on the accused may show that
the evidence related to the
incident is not true or at any rate
not wholly true. Likewise in
Lakshmi Singh case [1976 (4) SCC
394] also it is observed that any
non-explanation of the injuries on
the accuse by the prosecution may
affect the prosecution case But
such a non-explanation may assume
great importance where the evidence
consists of interested or inimical
witnesses or where the defence
gives probability with that of the
prosecution. But where the evidence
is clear, cogent and creditworthy
the truth from falsehood the mere
fact that injuries are not
explained by the prosecution cannot
by itself be a sole basis to reject
such evidence, and consequently the
whole case."
Since the question raised herein have already been
answered by a larger, Bench we send the record back to the
Bench, hearing the connected appeal.