Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.28 seconds)Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Pyare Mishra vs Prem Shanker & Ors on 22 August, 2008
18. So far as the alleged injuries on the person of the accused Bihari Lal and Lala Ram are concerned, it appears that in the arrest-cum-personal search memos (Ex.P.24 and P.26 respectively), it was stated that some minor old injuries were there. However, as rightly submitted by Mr. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the prosecution was neither called upon nor was obliged to explain such injuries on the person of the accused, more particularly when there were no questions put by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. The Apex Court in case of Ram Pyare Mishra Vs. Prem Shanker & Ors. (supra) has considered the law with regard to the non-explanation of the superficial injuries on the accused persons. In para 18 of the said judgment it has been observed as under :-
Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar on 19 September, 1986
In Hare krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 863), it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case.