2023 YLR 793
Mere admission in statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. is not sufficient for the conviction of accused
It was the primary duty of the prosecution to establish its own case independently instead of depending upon the weaknesses of defence, but in this case, the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its duty and did not produce sufficient incriminating evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of offence rather tried to get favourable decision from the court only on the basis of inculpatory portion of defence plea.
The defence plea can be accepted or rejected in toto and the practice of picking and choosing some sentences favouring the prosecution in isolation of those favouring the accused/appellant is strictly prohibited by the law.
The responsibility to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt squarely lies with the prosecution and if it fails to successfully discharge it, the only result can be the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused person and it is, by now, established proposition that multiple dou bts are not required in this regard, even a single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not o grace.
0 Comments