Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 436 and 447 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 436 and 447 of 1989)
Petitioner: Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors.
Respondent: The State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 436 and 447 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 436 and 447 of 1989)
Judges: M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.T. NANAVATI & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 1998
Appearances:
P.S. Mishra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Ritu Singh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Rajiv Singh, R.P. Singh, Vishnu Sharma, Nischal Neeraj, Advocates with him for the appellants.
H.L. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, (Kumar Rajesh Singh) Advocate for B.B. Singh, Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872 –
Section 3. Appreciation of evidence – Non-explanation of inju-ries on the person of accused – If sufficient in every case to discredit the evidence and prosecution case.Held that question stands answered by larger Bench in Baba Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam and Vijayee Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. JT 1990 (2) SC 596. Prosecution is not obliged to explain injuries on person of accused in all cases and in all circumstances, as that is not the law. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Vijayee Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. JT 1990 (2) SC 596 (Para 3)
2. Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 423. (Para 1)
3. Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan ((1979) 2 SCC 178) (Para 1)
4. Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors. v. State of Assam ((1974) 4 SCC 396) (Para 3)
2. Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 423. (Para 1)
3. Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan ((1979) 2 SCC 178) (Para 1)
4. Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors. v. State of Assam ((1974) 4 SCC 396) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
1. 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 the 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 v. State of Rajasthan ((1979) 2 SCC 178) and Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 423. 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 circumstanc-es under which the occurrence originated but before the obliga-tion is placed on the prosecution two conditions must be satis-fied :
(i) That the injury on the person of the accused must be very serious; and
(ii) That it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of occurrence in question.
2. 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 and on the failure of the prose-cution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
3. 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. v. 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 circumstances and, 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. v. State of U.P. JT 1990 (2) SC 596 wherein it has been held as under:
“In Mohar Rai case (1968 (3) SCR 525), it is made clear that failure 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 accused 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 wit-nesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and conse-quently the whole case.”
4. Since the questions raised herein have already been answered by a larger Bench, we send the record back to the Bench, hearing the connected appeal.
(i) That the injury on the person of the accused must be very serious; and
(ii) That it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of occurrence in question.
2. 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 and on the failure of the prose-cution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
3. 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. v. 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 circumstances and, 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. v. State of U.P. JT 1990 (2) SC 596 wherein it has been held as under:
“In Mohar Rai case (1968 (3) SCR 525), it is made clear that failure 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 accused 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 wit-nesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and conse-quently the whole case.”
4. Since the questions raised herein have already been answered by a larger Bench, we send the record back to the Bench, hearing the connected appeal.
