However, it is a well settled principle of law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one indicating the guilt of accused and other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted.
Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to'punish an accused. This is an established principle of law and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffer. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote, "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the leading figures of early American history, went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must got to the petitioner.
Once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or presence of eyewitnesses being doubtful, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution's case automatically goes in favour of an accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.
JAIL PETITION NO. 300 OF 2022
Saghir Ahmed VERSUS The State et c
28-11-2022
0 Comments