1998 JTR(SC) 849
1998 AIR(SC) 3117 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3030 ; 1998 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 577 ; 1998 37 AllCriC 519 ; 1999 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 107 ; 1999 1 BBCJ(SC) 136 ; 1998 CriLR 644 ; 1998 3 Crimes(SC) 202 ; 1998 CrLJ 4558 ; 1998 2 EastCrC(SC) 919 ; 1998 5 JT 620 ; 1999 1 PLJR(SC) 56 ; 1998 4 RCR(Cri) 54 ; 1998 4 Scale 641 ; 1998 7 SCC 365 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1630 ; 1998 KHC 1190 ; 1998 6 Supreme 522
1998(6) Supreme 522
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee, G.T. Nanavati and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 1995
Decided on 24-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Ritu Singh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Rajiv Singh, R.P. Singh, Vishnu Sharma, Nischal Neeraj, Advocates.
For the Respondent : H.L. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, (Kumar Rajesh Singh) Advocate for B.B. Singh, Advocate.
Important Point
It is not the law that the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries on the person of accused in all cases and in all circumstances.
(A) The referenced judicial pronouncements pertain to the obligations of the prosecution in criminal trials where the accused sustains injuries during the commission of an alleged offense, specifically addressing the necessity for the prosecution to explain such injuries. The analysis derives from the principles laid down in prior decisions of larger Benches of this Court, particularly in jurisdictions concerning the evaluation of evidence in serious injury cases, aiming to reconcile divergent interpretations regarding the burden of proof and the probative value of unexplained injuries on the accused.
(B) The core legal principle established is that the prosecution is not automatically obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused in every case; such an obligation arises only under specific circumstances, namely when the injuries are very serious and it is shown that they were caused at the time of the incident in question. The Court emphasized that unexplained injuries may undermine the prosecution case, especially where witnesses are interested or inimical, or the defence presents a competing version, but clear, cogent, and trustworthy evidence can withstand the mere fact of non-explanation.
Facts of the case:
The questions emerged from conflicting judicial precedents in prior cases regarding whether the prosecution must explain injuries on the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to do so constitutes suppression of truth or affects the origin of the incident.
Findings of Court:
The Bench noted that a two-judge Bench had mandated explanation for very serious injuries caused at the occurrence, while another Bench held that it is not an invariable rule. A three-judge Bench and another larger Bench had previously held that the prosecution is not obliged in all cases, and non-explanation may be significant but is not conclusive if the evidence is clear and credible.
Issues:
The key issues were whether the prosecution is obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to explain such injuries means the prosecution has suppressed the truth and the origin of the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The larger Bench clarified that the obligation on the prosecution to explain injuries is conditional, depending on the seriousness of the injuries and their temporal link to the incident, and that unexplained injuries may affect the case but do not automatically invalidate clear and credible evidence.
Result:
The questions referred were already answered by a larger Bench, and the record was directed to be returned to the hearing Bench for further disposal.
(A) The referenced judicial pronouncements pertain to the obligations of the prosecution in criminal trials where the accused sustains injuries during the commission of an alleged offense, specifically addressing the necessity for the prosecution to explain such injuries. The analysis derives from the principles laid down in prior decisions of larger Benches of this Court, particularly in jurisdictions concerning the evaluation of evidence in serious injury cases, aiming to reconcile divergent interpretations regarding the burden of proof and the probative value of unexplained injuries on the accused.
(B) The core legal principle established is that the prosecution is not automatically obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused in every case; such an obligation arises only under specific circumstances, namely when the injuries are very serious and it is shown that they were caused at the time of the incident in question. The Court emphasized that unexplained injuries may undermine the prosecution case, especially where witnesses are interested or inimical, or the defence presents a competing version, but clear, cogent, and trustworthy evidence can withstand the mere fact of non-explanation.
Facts of the case:
The questions emerged from conflicting judicial precedents in prior cases regarding whether the prosecution must explain injuries on the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to do so constitutes suppression of truth or affects the origin of the incident.
Findings of Court:
The Bench noted that a two-judge Bench had mandated explanation for very serious injuries caused at the occurrence, while another Bench held that it is not an invariable rule. A three-judge Bench and another larger Bench had previously held that the prosecution is not obliged in all cases, and non-explanation may be significant but is not conclusive if the evidence is clear and credible.
Issues:
The key issues were whether the prosecution is obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to explain such injuries means the prosecution has suppressed the truth and the origin of the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The larger Bench clarified that the obligation on the prosecution to explain injuries is conditional, depending on the seriousness of the injuries and their temporal link to the incident, and that unexplained injuries may affect the case but do not automatically invalidate clear and credible evidence.
Result:
The questions referred were already answered by a larger Bench, and the record was directed to be returned to the hearing Bench for further disposal.
Evidence - Cited in Vijayee Singh to show that failure to explain injuries may indicate evidence is not wholly true.
Evidence - Laid down the proposition that serious injuries on the accused oblige the prosecution to explain the circumstances of the occurrence.
Evidence - Held that it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution must explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence.
Evidence - Held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain injuries on the accused in all cases and circumstances.
Evidence - Relied upon to explain that non-explanation of injuries may be significant depending on witness credibility and defense version.
Evidence - Observed that non-explanation of injuries by prosecution may affect the prosecution case.
Judgment
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 Rajasthan1 and Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar2. 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 be satisfied :
(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 of 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 prosecution 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 Assam3 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.4 wherein it has been held as under :
“In Mohar Rai case5, 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 case6 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 witnesses 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 consequently 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.
Question referred already answered by a larger Bench.
(N.K.R.)
**********