MOHAR RAI & BHARATH RAI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 22-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
'F 
·G 
MOHAR RAI & BHARATH RAI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIBAR 
March 22, 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. ffEGDE, JJ.] 
Cri11linal Trial-Trial Court and High Court refusing to exan1int• ac-
cused's defence-
01i ground. their 
1:ersion had already ~been rejected in 
anot!1er case filed on a complaint by accused-if permissible. 
Code of Crimirwl Procedure, 1898, ss, 145, 154, 157 & 168-docu-
111e11t containing staten1ent of accus<td in investigation--accused no1 exa-
111i11ed as witness-whether document c.dniissible evidence. 
The first appellant was convicted under s. 324 JPC for shooting and 
injuring PW I, at the instigation of the second appellant, who was himself 
convicted of an offence under s. 324 read with s, 109 lPC. The existence 
of enmity between the appellants and most of the prosecution witnes·ses 
who spoke to the occurrence was satisfactorily established. The plea of 
the appellants in their defence was that on the date of the incident when 
they were returning home in the evening, they were way-laid by PWI and 
several others and were assaulted; thereafter with a view to foist 8 false 
case against them, a revolver was forcibly thrust into the hands of the first 
appellant. 
In connection with this incident, the State came to initiate 
three prosecutions : One case was instituted on the basis of a complaint 
by the first appellant; a second case was commenced against the 
first 
appellant under s, 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act for being armed with a 
revolver; and the third was the present case. 
The case instituted on the 
first appellant's complaint as well as the case against him under the Arnts 
Act were both dismissed. 
The trial court as well as the High Court refused to examine the de-
fence of the appellants solely on the ground that the case pleaded by them 
had been rejected by the Magistrate in the prosecution commenced on the 
basis of the complaint by the first appellant. 
In appeal to this Court 
it ·was contended on behalf of the appellants that they did not have a fair 
trial; the High Coµrt as well as the trial court on an erroneous view of 
the law refused to take their defence into consideration; they ignored im-
portant circumstances appearing in favour of the appellants; and further-
more, some of the conclusions reached by them were unsupP.orted by any 
evidence on record. It was also contended that itn inadmissible document, 
namely a statement made by the second appellant in the course of the 
investigation was wrongly admitted; this admission was hit by s. 162 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure which had also greatly prejudiced the 
ca&a of the appellants. 
HELD : The appeals must be allowed and the appellants acquitted. 
(i) The trial .court as well as the High Court erred in summarily re· 
jccting the defence of the appellants on the sole ground that the version 
put forward by them having been rejected by the Magistrate in the case 
filed on the complaint of the first appellant, it could not be considered 
again. 
The defence of the appellants was highly probabilised by three 
important circum~tances, namely. ( l) it was put forward immediately 
after the occurrence, (2) it satisfactorily explained the injuries found on 
the persons of the appellants while the prosecution 
evidence failed to 
I 
I 
526 
SUPREME COURT RBPOllTS 
(1968] 3 S.C.R. 
explain those injuries; and (3) the prose<:ution evidence itself showed that 
the first appellant couW not have used the revolver exhibited and there-
for his version that that weapon was thrust on him was probabilised. 
[531 H-532 BJ 
In both the prosecutic'!s-in the complaint made by the first appellant 
as well as m the complaint made by P.W.1-the pl-oeecutor before the 
court was the State. Therefore, the decision in the former case could not 
operate as an issue-estoppel against the appellants in the present case, 
because they were not parties in the former case. In other words, the 
plea taken by the appellants in this case was never before litigated bewteen 
them and the State, the opposite party in the present case. All that can 
be said is that the case put forward by the State in the one case was in· 
consistent with that put forward by it in the other, In those circumstances 
it was wrong to hold that the appellants were estopped from putting for-
ward their defence. [531 B-D] 
Prilam Singh v. The State of Punjab, A.l.R. 1956 S.C. 415; Manipur 
Adniinirtration v. Thokchoni, Bira Singh, (1964] S.C.R. 123; Sa112baSivan1 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.