It is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that for an accused to be convicted, the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is presumed innocent. The burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution, and the accused is not required to provide evidence to refute the prosecution's claims. Mere presumption of innocence associated with the accused is adequate to warrant acquittal, unless the Court is fully convinced beyond reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, following a thorough and impartial examination of evidence available on the record.
Presumption of innocence remains with the accused till such time the prosecution on the evidence satisfies the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The two concepts i.e. "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "presumption of innocence" are so closely linked together, that they must be presented as a unit. If the presumption of innocence is the golden thread of criminal justice then proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the silver and these two threads are forever intertwined in the fabric of criminal justice.
Therefore, the expression is of fundamental importance to our criminal justice system. It is one of the principles, which seeks to ensure that no innocent person is convicted.
Thus, it is the primary responsibility of the prosecution to substantiate its case against the accused and the burden of proof never shifts, except in cases falling under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
The proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires the prosecution to adduce evidence that convincingly demonstrates the guilt of the accused to a prudent person. A reasonable doubt is a hesitation, a prudent person might have before making a decision.
In order to determine whether an offense falls within the scope of Section 6 ATA, it is imperative to have a glance over the allegations levelled in the FIR, the case record, and the surrounding circumstances. It is crucial to assess whether the elements of the alleged offence are connected to the objectives outlined in Sections 6, 7, and 8 ATA. The assessment of whether a specific act constitutes terrorism depends on examining its motivation, objective, design, or purpose. It is essential to ascertain whether the act in question has instilled a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, a specific community, or any sect.
Examining the case in hand on the above touchstone, it is evident from the record that the accusation of kidnapping for ransom involves five individuals allegedly motivated solely by financial gain. The present incident is alleged to be a short term kidnapping for ransom that lasted only for 5 to 6 hours and the abductee was released allegedly upon receipt of the demanded ransom amount. The petitioners lack a prior criminal history, therefore, this does not meet the criteria for terrorism as the two fold mens rea, as stated above, is missing.
Crl.P.L.A.1690-L/2016
Imtiaz Latif, etc v. The State, etc
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
27-03-2024
0 Comments