Judgment

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 Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan1 and Hare Krish­na Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar2. 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 occurrence in question.

2. In the other case another two judge Bench of t