(1) Why accused is the “favourite child of law” and why victim is not the “favourite child of law”.
(3) The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty.
The foremost rationale of the administration of criminal justice is to penalize and reproach the offender or perpetrator so as to maintain law and order in the populace and society and deter such crimes. Hence it is the onerous duty of the State to punish offenders under the laws of the land, which includes penal laws. In the administration of criminal justice, the evidence considered may be ocular or circumstantial and may be classified as direct or indirect evidence. In all indictments, it is the arduous duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as where such doubt exists, the Court may extend the benefit thereof to the accused and exonerate him from the charge. The probative worth and value of evidence hinges, by and large, on the facts of each case. The Courts are duty-bound to gauge the trustworthiness of witnesses, identify and resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies and/or contradictions, contemplate the medical evidence vis-à-vis the ocular testimony as corroborative piece of evidence, and then reach a conclusion. The term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is a legal fiction whereby a hefty burden of proof is required to be discharged to award or maintain a sentence or verdict of guilt in a criminal case. Id est, it connotes that the prosecution is obligated to satisfy the Court with regard to the actuality of reasonable grounds, beyond any shadow of doubt, in order to secure a verdict of guilt. Indubitably, the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is considerably greater than the benchmark adopted in the trial of civil cases i.e. on a balance of probabilities.
The High Court has ample jurisdiction under the law while dealing with an appeal, irrespective of whether it is moved against an acquittal or against a conviction. It is a well settled principle in the criminal justice system that if two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of the evidence, then the view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to. The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and, in the event of an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinvigorated, fortified and strengthened. The law does not impose any fetters on the powers and jurisdiction of the Appellate Court for reconsideration or reappraisal of the evidence on which the order of conviction or acquittal is grounded.
We are mindful of the phrase that “the accused is the favourite child of law” but it is somewhat enlightening to understand why this axiom was not coined contrariwise to say “the victim is the favourite child of the law”. The substratum of this concept is based on the farsightedness and prudence, ‘let a hundred guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be convicted’; or that it is better to run the risk of sparing the guilty than to condemn the innocent. The raison d'être is to assess and scrutinize whether the police and prosecution have performed their tasks accurately and diligently in order to apprehend and expose the actual culprits, or whether they dragged innocent persons in the crime report on account of a defective or botched-up investigation which became a serious cause of concern for the victim who was deprived of justice. The philosophy of the turn of phrase “the accused is the favourite child of law” does not imply that the Court should grant any unwarranted favour, indulgence or preferential treatment to the accused, rather it was coined to maintain a fair-minded and unbiased sense of justice in all circumstances, as a safety gauge or safety contrivance to ensure an evenhanded right of defence with a fair trial for compliance with the due process of law, which is an integral limb of the safe administration of criminal justice and is crucial in order to avoid erroneous verdicts, and to advocate for the reinforcement of the renowned doctrine “innocent until proven guilty”.
0 Comments