Ram Sunder Yadav & Others
v.
State Of Bihar
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 1608-1609 Of 1995 | 30-07-1998
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.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties -----------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.K. MUKHERJEE
Eq Citation
(1999) 2 SCC 52
1998 (2) ALT (CRL) 212
AIR 1999 SC 2873
1999 CRILJ 3671
1998 (2) ALD (CRL) 577
1998 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 54
LQ/SC/1998/710
HeadNote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 145 and 144 — Failure of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by accused in same occurrence — Effect of — Held, since divergent views have been taken by Supreme Court on this point, matter should be referred to larger Bench
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.