Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Benefit of doubt. - Where the case against the accused was not free from doubt even though there may be strong suspicion agai9st him. Held that in such circumstances the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. While it is true that the benefit of every doubt even in the matter of interpretation of status must be given to the accused, a construction which could defeat the very object of the law must be avoided if it is reasonably possible to do so. In a criminal case the benefit of reasonable doubt goes to the accused. Where the prosecu- tion evidence is insufficient, the judge must acquit the accused. Where there is any doubt, the accused person must receive the benefit of that doubt. Where it is a case of very great suspicion against the accused and there are number of facts which lead one to suspect that the real truth has not been placed before the Court either by the accused or by some of the prosecution witnesses and there is nothing in the evidence which is inconsistent with possibility of the story of the accused being wholly or to a large extent true, in such a position it is not just to convict the accused. 35 litres of illicit liquor recovered from the back seat of the tempo driven by accused. Co-ac- cused was allegedly sitting there. Co-accused in the meantime has been murdered. Plea that accused was only a driver of tempo was not in exclusive or conseous possession of the Call containing liquor. Can was with the co-accused. Petitioner acquitted on the benefit of doubt. Accused found distilling illicit liquor by a working still. Prosecution case resting on the tes- timony of official witnesses. Police held to have raided the same village earlier in the morning also. Serious contradiction between the statements of official witness. Benefit of doubt. Ac- cused acquitted. Accused found distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still in his house. Plea of the accused that component parts and working still were found in the vacant site on the back of his house supported by the Lambardar of the village. Lone PW not produced to corroborate the prosecution story. Conviction set aside giving benefit of doubt. The only reason given by the courts below to discard their testimony was that they did not complain to the higher authorities in the matter. This is not a sound approach for discarding the evidence of the said DWs . Moreover, Pritam Singh Chowkidar, the lone witness who was joined by the raiding party, has not been produced by the prosecution. In these circumstances, I am of the view that it could not be safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. Accused found in possession of35 bottles of illicit liquor. Independent witness joined by the police with the patrolling party which apprehended the accused. Witness, however, not pro- duced in Court. Accused let off by police upon his executing a personal bond. Person witnessing the thumb-impression of accused on the bond, not supporting the prosecution version. Thumb impression on the bond found to be submerged and not proved to be that of accused. Prosecution case held to be doubtful. Accused acquitted. Accused found with a working still. Prosecution story rests on the testimony of official witnesses. Version of the official witnesses highly discrepant on material point. Story highly improbable. Benefit of doubt given. Accused acquitted. Companion of accused acquitted by separate trial. Accused would not be discriminated. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Conviction due to enmity of police who arrested the accused three days earlier to the actual registration of case. Complaint by the father of the petitioner about the arrest without any cause, sent to Chief Minister of Punjab, forwarded to the Superintendent of Police; Petitioner alleged to have in possession 160 bottles of liquor. Defence revision regarding sending of the complaint held to be concocted by the trial Court. Set aside by the appellate court on technical ground of proving the document. High Court set aside the order of conviction believing the defence version. Petitioner acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Criminal cases. Defence version is not expected to be proved with as much exactness as the prosecution is expected to prove its version. Case against the accused not proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. One of the three co-accused acquitted with the finding that he was falsely implicated. Involvement of remaining two petitioners cannot said to be free from reasonable doubt. Material discrepancies in the testimony of official witnesses. Independent witnesses given up at the trial. Petitioners acquitted. Petitioner found distilling illicit liquor by working still in kitchen of his house. Only witness of the village not produced by the prosecution. Prosecution story held to be highly improbable in view of the fact that another person from the adjoining house was arrested doing the same thing. Not safe to rely on the testimony of official witness. Petitioner acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor. Prosecution story that accused was arrested after recovery but was bailed out immediately on the spot. Bail bond and surety bond found to be the doubtful. It made the prosecution story doubtful. conviction and sentence set aside. Recovery of seven bottles of illicit liquor by Police. Sample sent to Public Analyst. No evi- dence to prove that case property remained intact from time of its seizure until it was delivered to public analyst. It is incumbent upon prosecution to prove that sample was duly sealed and was not tampered with by anybody. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Accused in custody of police in connection with a case under Section (1) (c) made a disclo- sure statement leading to recovery of5 drums of lahan allegedly kept concealed by him. No independent witness joined from the locality at the time of recovery in-spite of ample time. Statement of official witnesses supporting the prosecution discrepant on a number of particu- lars. Accused held entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted. The held, that apparently while the petitioner was in the custody of the raid party the police had ample time to join some inde- pendent witnesses from the locality but the police failed to do so for reason better known to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken through the statements of the two official witnesses and pointed out a number of discrepancies. In the circumstances the peti- tioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Property entrusted to accused missing. Accused giving credible and probable account of its disappearance. The accused need not show more. The benefit of doubt is not to be given only in case where the theory of the defence is accepted to be true but on the assumption that the story of the defence might be perfectly true. Where the prosecution failed to prove its case or where the prosecution is not certain as to what happened at the actual scene of occurence, the accused need not examine any witness in support of his statement. Unless and until the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused" no adverse inference can be drawn against him from the non-production of evidence by him. In a criminal case an accused person is not called upon to prove the defence version with that exactness with which the prosecution is expected to prove. The accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt if from the cumulative effect of all the circumstances of the case the court comes to the conclusion, that the case against him is not proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Where the partner of the accused had appeared against him as a witness, it would evidently show, that he would not have appeared if he had no strained relations with him. The accused in this case has also given explanation why he was implicated in this case by a Sup-Inspector of a different Police Station. In these circumstances, it was held, that the recovery of liquor from the house of accused could not be believed. Factors inconsistent with theory set up by defene do no necessarily exclude probability of defene version being true. If the circumstances show aieasonable probability of the accused being true there is no option but to acquit the accused. There are two important factors for every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of an acused person; one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other an off-shoot of the same principle, that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then even though he cannot prove his assertion, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false. Furthermore in a criminal case where different construction can be placed on any incident consistent with the evidence in the case, it is right to put the construction which is most favourable to the accused. The burden of proof is never shifted to the accused and if a reasonable explanation is given by the accused it would be up to Courts to acquit the accused. Wherever it may be possible to take two views of the statement of the accused the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. When an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, even though the accused cannot prove his assertions, it should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that it is false. In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is a principle of cardinal importance and so the guilt of the accused must in every case be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, probabilities, however, strong and suspicion, however, grave, can never take the place of proof.