Open iDraf
Ram Sunder Yadav & Others v. State Of Bihar

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