Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Since Judges and sages of Law have ceaselessly chanted the sonorous doctrine of presumption of innocence of the accused from almost time immemorial, I would not have the presumptuous temerity to question the same; but, if I may say with respect, the doctrine, in the broad shape and form in which it is propounded and declared to be a unique feature of our Criminal Jurisprudence, is somewhat confusing and misleading. Far from finding any sound basis for any such legal presumption to the effect that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved at the trial, I have found the so-called presumption to "faint and fail" whenever an accused is declined bail, and that too, on the basis of unsigned statements of some alleged witnesses, recorded behind the back of the accused, in the case-diary under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to which the accused has no access and copies whereof are not furnished to the accused till charge-sheet is filed. I have also found the so-called presumption to get a severe jolt when Section 105 of the Evidence Act mandates that "the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances" which would bring the case of the accused within the General Exceptions provided in Chapter IV of the Penal Code or elsewhere in the said Code or any other Law and which would demonstrate his innocence; or when Section 114 authorises the Court to presume the accused to be a thief or receiver of stolen property solely on the ground of his possession of the stolen goods, unless the accused satisfactorily accounts for such possession. The relevant provisions of various legislations relating to statutory or economic offences and also the recent amendments introduced in the Evidence Act in the last decade, e.g., Section 114A etc., are so inconsistent or incompatible with the so-called presumption as to render the same almost to a ritualistic chanting.