Whether prosecution case will stand proved if accused fails to give explanation or gives false explanation?

 It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0030/1955 : 1955CriLJ1647 , to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:

But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation...

such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain.

158. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:

(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.

(2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and

(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.

159. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983

Decided On: 17.07.1984

 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Vardarajan, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Sabyasachi Mukherjee, JJ.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Citation:  (1984) 4 SCC 116(1) 

Print Page