2021 LHC 4023
In scaled site plan the distance between deceased and appellant has been mentioned as 3 Karams at the time of firing, which is not disputed as 16.5 feet. In this view of the matter there is a serious contrast in medical and ocular account of this case.
This is the settled principle of law that prosecution cannot escape from its duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. James Q. Whitman in his book “The Origins of Reasonable Doubt” while digging in deep into its past, has written about origins that it was not primarily intended to protect the accused, instead, strange as it may sound, the reasonable doubt formula was originally concerned with protecting the souls of the jurors against damnation. According to him convicting an innocent defendant was regarded, as a potential mortal sin . Referring to medieval doctrine , judging was a spiritually dangerous business. Any sinful misstep committed by a judge in the course of judging “built him a mansion in Hell.” To be a judge in a capital case was to participate in a killing, and that meant judging was full of spiritual peril. He kept on saying that doubt was the voice of an uncertain conscience, and it had to be obeyed. “In cases of doubt,” as the standard theological formula ran, “the safer way is not to act at all.” A judge who sentenced an accused person to a blood punishment while experiencing “doubt” about guilt committed a mortal sin, and thus put his own salvation at grave risk. There is plenty of evidence that English jurors took these ominous threats quite seriously, especially at the end of the eighteenth century. Jurors experienced “a general dread lest the charge of innocent blood should lie at their doors.” It was in response to such juror “dread” that the reasonable doubt standard introduced itself into the common law, especially during the 1780s. It is still with us today, a living fossil from an older moral world. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” standard was not originally designed to make it more difficult for jurors to convict but it was originally designed to make conviction easier, by assuring jurors that their souls were safe if they voted to condemn the accused. He finally wrote that: -
“The law cannot give any convincing answer to the question, what is the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt?”. That is a question only history can answer”
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence before the Court. These are the golden principles of law that: -
a. Finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case.
b. Finding of the guilt should rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced by the prosecution.
c. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof otherwise the golden rule of benefit of doubt will be reduced to naught.
d. It is the duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
e. Accused is only to create dents in prosecution’s case.
f. Benefit of doubt however slight may be must go to accused not as a matter of concession or grace but as a matter of right.
g. Even a single infirmity in prosecution’s case would entitle accused to benefit of doubt.
Criminal Appeal No. 88-J of 2015 (Muhammad Umar vs. The State & 2 others)
2021 LHC 4023 |
0 Comments