1998 JTR(SC) 733
1999 AIR(SC) 2873 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2477 ; 1999 CrLJ 3671 ; 1999 2 SCC 52 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 103 ; 1999 KHC 2461
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : M.K.Mukherjee
Ram Sunder Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 1608 , 1609 of 1995
Date of Decision : 7/30/98
Advocates Appeared: Agrawal H.L. : Jain R.K.
The court referred the question of whether the prosecution is mandated to explain injuries sustained by the accused during an occurrence, and the consequences of failing to do so, to a larger bench due to divergent judicial views.
(A) Criminal Law - Prosecution's obligation to explain injuries sustained by the accused - Whether failure to explain such injuries implies suppression of truth and the origin and genesis of the occurrence - Divergent views expressed by the court in previous judgments - Matter requires settlement by a larger bench. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed in a criminal matter where the accused sustained injuries during the occurrence. The core dispute involves the prosecution's failure to explain these injuries and the impact of such failure on the case.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that divergent views have been taken on whether the prosecution is obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused and the legal implications of such failure.
Issues: Whether the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to so explain would mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the court has taken divergent views on the obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries to the accused, the point should be settled by a larger bench.
Result: Matter referred to a larger bench.
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed in a criminal matter where the accused sustained injuries during the occurrence. The core dispute involves the prosecution's failure to explain these injuries and the impact of such failure on the case.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that divergent views have been taken on whether the prosecution is obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused and the legal implications of such failure.
Issues: Whether the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure to so explain would mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the court has taken divergent views on the obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries to the accused, the point should be settled by a larger bench.
Result: Matter referred to a larger bench.
Injuries - The court refers to this case regarding divergent views on whether the prosecution is obliged to explain injuries sustained by the accused during an occurrence.
JUDGMENT
M.K.MUKHERJEE, JJ.
(1) ONE of the questions which requires our answer in these appeals is 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. Since this court has taken divergent views on these points, as would appear from the cases referred to in the judgment of this court in Hare Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar besides others, we feel that the point should be settled by a larger bench. Let these papers be placed before the learned chief justice for necessary orders. court Masters