| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
|
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence ? Serious offence ? Quality of evidence ? Duty of Court ? Held, The court cannot accept unsatisfactory evidence, or hold the case as proved without there being satisfactory and reliable evidence? because of the seriousness of the alleged offence? The necessity of having clear, satisfactory and reliable evidence against an accused before he is held guilty ? cannot be dispensed with on the ground that the offence alleged is a serious one? On the contrary, the seriousness of the offence would require the court to examine the evidence cautiously and carefully? because of the severity of the punishment likely to be given to the accused, if found guilty. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence ? Principle of innocence ? ?May be? proved & ?Will be proved? ? Difference between ? Held, suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof? there is a large difference between something that ?may be? proved & ?will be proved? ? In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof? the mental distance between ?may be? & ?must be? is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions ? Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan ?Relied upon. (Para 29) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence ? Burden of proof ? Duty of the Court ? In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof ? The large distance between ?may be? true and ?must be? true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied conclusions ? Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan ?Relied upon. (Para 29). |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence ? Reasonable doubt ? Duty of the Court ? The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided ? and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand ? then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused ? keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt ? but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense conclusions ? Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan ?Relied upon. (Para 29) |
PDF |
|