Saturday, 8 April 2017

Leading Judgment on proof beyond reasonable doubt

The foregoing discussion as such, makes it clear that evidence of PW1 to PW4 is trustworthy and reliable. In a criminal case, the prosecution is obliged to prove charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Though this standard of proof is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. Though it was argued that because of various minor discrepancies, the prosecution case is not free from doubt, no substance is found in such submission as the doubt must be that of a reasonable man. It must be actual, substantial and reasonable. The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by appellants/accused persons. To be reasonable, a doubt must be based upon reason and common sense. It should grow out of evidence in the case. The concept of proof beyond all reasonable doubts cannot stretched too much to mean proof of rigid mathematical precision. Therefore, we do not find any merit in submission of the learned counsel for appellants that case of prosecution is doubtful because PW1 Abhijit Nikude had admitted in cross-examination that when he had been to
police station, police had not arrested the accused, whereas PW9 Subhash Jadhav - Investigator says that accused were caught red handed. Ultimately, arrest panchnama at Exhibit 84 is an admitted document which shows arrest on the day of the incident. In the matter of Ganesh Datt (Supra) the evidence of prosecution was found to be inconsistent and on facts it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused therein. Such is not the case in hand.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 956, 1069, 1127 of 2005 and 624 of 2006
Decided On: 06.12.2016
Kasam Alisha Shaikh and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Tahilramani and A.M. Badar, JJ.

Citation:2017 ALLMR(CRI)1100
Read full judgment here:Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment