SURENDRA PASWAN versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 28-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURENDRA PASWAN 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF JHARKHAND 
NOVEMBER 28, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Eye witnesses had seen bullet fired by the accused on the deceased-
Later on, a bullet was found embodied in the dead body of the deceased- C 
Bullet not sent for chemical examination-Whether fatal to the prosecution 
case-Held, no-When the evidence given by the eyewitnesses are credible, 
cogent and trustworthy, merely because the bullet was not sent for ballistic 
examination, it would not outweigh the testimonial worth of the eyewitness. 
Minor injuries on the body of the accused in the same occurrence- D 
Medical evidence not brought before the court-Whether fatal-No-It is 
not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries 
sustained by the accused-When the prosecution comes with a definite case 
that the offence has been committed by the accused and prow~s its case 
beyond any reasonable doubt it becomes hardly necess~ry for the pros- E 
ecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have 
been inflicted on the person of the accused. 
The deceased and accused were in the same trade union. Deceased 
joined another union. When deceased and his son PW-4 had gone to F 
take tea near the shop of PW-5, PW-1 and PW-2 were also sitting near 
the shop. Suddenly the four accused persons came from the side of the 
road. A3 came towards PW-4 and the deceased and directed that the 
deceased should be assaulted. On hearing this, the Appellant took out 
a pistol from his waist and fired at the deceased. Bullet hit the left eye 
of the deceased as a result of which he fell on the ground. He was taken G · 
to hospital where he was declared dead. 
Placing reliance on th~ evidence of the eyewitnesses, the trial 
court convicted the accused persons. Appeal was file~ before the High 
Court. A-I died during the pendency of the appeal, A-2 and A-3 were H 
~., 1 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. However the conviction of 
Appellant was confirmed by the High Court. Hence the appeal. 
It was contended by the Appellant that though the prosecution 
case was that one bullet was fired, tlie investigating officer during the 
. 
~ 
B course of evidence had stated that he recovered a pallet; that the bullet 
which was found embodied on the body of the deceased was extracted 
by the doctor who had handed it over to police and the same was not 
sent for chemical examination; the injuries on the accused were not 
explained by the prosecution and the investigation was perfunctory as 
C 
the medical report of the Appellant was not even collected and seized 
bullet was not sent for ballistic examination which was fatal to the 
prosecution case. 
It was contended by the State that three eyewitnesses specifically 
deposed regarding the place of occurrence, the manner of assault and 
D gave detailed description of the entire scenario; that the Trial Court 
as well as the High Court had found the evidence credible, cogent and 
trustworthy; that merely ,because th~ bullet was not sent for chemical 
examination, it would not be a factor which would outweigh the 
testimonial worth of the eyewitnesses. 
E 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution would 
not affect the prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused 
F were minor or superficial or where the evidence was so clear and 
cogent, so independent and disinterested, so' probable, consistent and 
creditworthy~ that it outweighs the effect of the omissiOn on t~e part 
of the prosecution to explain the injuries. Prosecution is not called upon 
in all. cases to e~plain the injuries received by the accused persons. It 
is for the defence to put question to the prosec_.tion witness regarding 
G the injuries of the accused persons. When t!tat is not done, there is no 
occasion for the prosecution witnes~ to explain any injury on the 
person o( an accused. Obligation of the prosecution to explain ,the 
injuries·sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise 
in each and every case. When the prosecution comes with a definite 
. H case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves 
SURENDRA PASW AN v. ST A TE OF JHARKHAND 
323 
it beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for tl)e A 
prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances the 
injuries have been inflicted on

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