STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SARDAR

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1161 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
r 
..._ 
SARDAR 
-
JULY 25, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Evidence-Omissions and contradictions in -Effect of-Held: Omissions 
and contradictions which affect basic structure of prosecution case may be c 
sufficient for giving benefit of doubt to accused-But if benefit of doubt is 
given to some accused persons on the basis of some contra</ictions it does 
not mean that the basic structure of prosecution case is affected-Hence, 
other accused persons cannot be given benefit of doubt on that basis-Penal-
Code, 1860-S. 302. 
D 
Injuries to accused-Non-explanation of-Inference of-Held: Non-
explanation of injuries to accused may lead to the inference that (i) 
~. 
prosecution has not presented the true version of the incident; (ii) witness/ 
are lying on a material point and, therefore, their evidence is untrustworthy 
and (iii) if the i,?juries are explained by the defence doubt is thrown on the E 
prosecution case-But non-explanation of injuries may lose its importance 
if evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and truth can be distinguished 
from falsehood. 
The respondent-accused was convicted by the 'trial court under Section 
302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo F 
imprisonment for life. But t .. e High Court acquitted the respondent-accused 
on the ground that he should also have been given the same benefit of doubt, 
which had been given by the trial court to two accused persons in the same 
incident. Hence these appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent was the G 
main accused who had accosted, threatened and beaten the deceased and 
.. 
injured the prosecution witnesses; and that the High Court acquitted the 
respondent on an erroneous reasoning. 
-( 
On behalf of the respondent-accused it was contended that no 
independent witnesses were examined; that the investigation was one-sided; H 
1161 
1162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A that the prosecution had not explained the injuries caused to the accused; 
that there were omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the injured 
witnesses and that no incised injury was found on the person of the injured 
";.-. 
witnesses or the deceased. 
~ 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1. Normally, omissions or contradictions, which affect the 
basic structure of the prosecution case, may be considered to be sufficient 
for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. On the basis of some contradictions, 
no doubt, benefit of doubt is given to two accused persons, but that would not 
... 
c 
mean that the basic gtructure of the prosecution version, that the accused 
assaulted and injured witnesses as well as the deceased, is affected at all and 
it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, after considering the 
omissions and contradictions and after appreciating the entire evidence, if 
the courts below have arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has 
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against some accused persons, it 
D would not be a case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
(1174-A-C 
2.1. It is settled law that in case of non-explanation of injures to the 
accused, Court can draw the following inferences: 
~--
E 
(a) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of 
the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. 
(b) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on 
the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, 
their evidence is unreliable. 
F 
(c) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries 
·-
on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on 
the prosecution case. Jl 174-G-H; 1175-A) 
2.2. But, non-explanation of injuries may lose its importance where the 
evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where court can distinguish 
G the truth from falsehood without much difficulty. It is also true that the 
reasonable inference, which could be drawn in such cases, is that the accused 
persons received the injuries during the course of occurrence and that some 
'W-
members of the prosecution party inflicted such injuries. On that basis 
again, the question would be whether the accused caused the injury !o the 
,_ 
prosecution witnesses and the deceased by exercising right of private defence. 
H If the prosecution establishes that the accused we

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