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.