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
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.