➢ A person who, by coincidence or accidently, is present at the scene of crime’.
➢ A person who in ordinary circumstances has not to be present, where he claims to be.
➢ A person who in view of his place of residence or occupation and in the ordinary course of events is not supposed to be present at the place of the occurrence but states to be there by chance.
Under the settled principles of law statement of a Chance Witness requires scrutiny with great care and caution and can be accepted only if he gives satisfactory explanation of his presence at or near the place of the occurrence at the relevant time otherwise his testimony is liable to be rejected straightaway.
In legal proceeding, there are two basics burdens called ‘the legal burden’ and ‘the evidential burden’. The ‘legal burden’ is the obligation on a party to prove what it has alleged. In criminal proceedings, it is the prosecution who has the legal burden of proving all the elements of offence or offences and certainly beyond reasonable doubt. Whether prosecution is successful or at the defeating end while discharging the said duty, it is to be decided by the court at the end of trial.
Whereas, the ‘evidential burden’ is the duty of prosecution to adduce sufficient, reliable, convincing and conclusive evidence against the accused so as to get favorable findings from the court. The discharge of evidential burden will not lead to discharge the legal burden as both have to hit the bull’s eye simultaneously. Therefore by now these are the settled principles of law that: -
➢ Conviction cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case.
➢ Finding of the guilt should rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced by the prosecution.
➢ Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of legal proof otherwise the golden rule of benefit of doubt will be reduced to naught.
➢ Accused is only to create doubt in prosecution’s case.
➢ It is the duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
➢ Benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused.
➢ Benefit of doubt however slight must go to the accused.
➢ Single infirmity in prosecution’s case will entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.
➢ Court is not supposed to thumb mark blindly what the prosecution has desired.
➢ Rule of law is the supreme consideration and nothing is top to it. A Judge is only to be impressed when “burden of persuasion” is successfully discharged which means to convince the court that qualitative evidence is there.
1. (Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2019)
Muhammad Irfan Haider & 2 others Versus The State & another
2. (Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2019) Ikram ul Haq Versus The State & another
Date of Hearing: 13.09.2022
0 Comments