Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.61 seconds)
Yogendra Kasturbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 31 March, 1997 cites

Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Shri Om Prakash on 7 December, 1971

While it is not the function of this Court to determine who other than the person who has been charged with the murder had committed it, the line which the defence adopted was to establish that the witnesses referred to above had an interest in implicating the accused or at any rate to create uncertainty and doubt sufficient to give the benefit to the accused. It is not beyond the ken of experienced able and astute lawyers to raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of the prosecution evidence either during trial by cross-examination or by the marshalling of that evidence in the manner in which the emphasis is placed thereon. But what has to be borne in mind is that the penumbra of uncertainty in the evidence before a Court is generally due to the nature and quality of that evidence. It may be the witnesses are lying or where they are honest and truthful, they are not certain. It is, therefore, difficult to expect a scientific or mathematical exactitude while dealing with such evidence or arriving at a true conclusion. Because of these difficulties corroboration is sought wherever possible and the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt becomes pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt - the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be -or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given or as one great Judge said it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism." It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised. Lord Goddard. C'. J. in Rex. v. Kritz 1950(1) KB 82 at p. 90 said that when in explaining to the Juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge begins to use the words "reasonable doubt" and to try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not he is much more likely to confuse the Jury than if he tells them in plain language. "It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoner's guilt". What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. This then is the approach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 181 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1