1998 INSC 0631
                                          Ram Sunder Yadav and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                    State of Bihar

                                   Criminal Appeals Nos. 1608-1609 of 1995

                            (M. K. Mukherjee, G. T. Nanavati, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      24.08.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

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 the Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan ((1979) 2 SCC 178 :
1979 SCC (Cri) 436) and Hare Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar ((1988) 2 SCC 95 : 1988 SCC (Cri)
279). 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 the
                  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 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 v. State of Assam ((1977) 4 SCC 396 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 602) and held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of
the 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-Juge Bench of this
Court in Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. ((1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378) wherein it has
been held as under : (SCC p. 202, para 10)

                  "In Mohar Rai Case (Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 : (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 (Lakshmi
                  Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671) 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 greater 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.