BENEFIT OF DOUBT – CRIMINAL LAWS

Authored By: Dev Gupta

BENEFIT OF DOUBT – CRIMINAL LAWS

Law, in most of democratic societies/countries, has been derived and framed on the foundations of the principles, namely – “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY” and “LET HUNDREDS OF CRIMINALS GO FREE, BUT ONE INNOCENT SHALL NOT SUFFER”.The latter was put forth by Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Even when allegations are leveled against a person, as long as he stands on trial in a court of law, he is innocent until the said allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the aggrieving act lies upon the petitioner. Every person has a right to be heard; no matter what the circumstances may be, this right of his does not diminish. A person can commit the most atrocious, heinous act, yet he shall have the benefit of the doubt in the court of law, and he shall also be heard.

MEANING:

1. Literary sense – Benefit of Doubt means when you accept something a person says to be accurate, even when you have lingering doubts regarding the said statement.

2. Legal sense- Benefit of the doubt is an acquittal – the outcome of the accused based on inconclusive evidence.

Insufficient absence of credible eye witness, and failure to place the accused at the time and place of the incident are some cases when the Benefit of the Doubt can be adopted.

BENEFIT OF Doubt IN INDIA:

Although the benefit of the doubt is not ad verbatim mentioned in the Indian Laws, it is adopted in the orders and judgments of various Honourable Courts since it is a foundational principle of law. The Honourable Supreme Court of India has, at multiple times, granted acquittals based on Benefit of Doubt.  As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on all Courts subordinate to it and also to the Supreme Court itself; benefit of doubt becomes a sort of law in India.

“HONOURABLE ACQUITTAL” :

The trial Court, upon careful examination of the witnesses, evidence, and facts, may pronounce a judgment resulting in one of 3 things, they are –

1. Convict the accused.

2. Fully Acquit the accused based on the facts established in the proceedings.

3. Acquit the accused on a technicality or on “Benefit of Doubt.”

“Honourable Acquittal” is a term coined by Indian Jurisprudence where, if the accused is fully acquitted after a thorough proceeding and failure of the prosecution to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is said to be “Honourably Acquitted,”.” In contrast, an acquittal based on “Benefit of Doubt” may sometimes be termed as “Dishonourable Acquittal”. Although a point to be noted is that nowhere in the Indian Laws are the above terms mentioned. Use of the terms has seeped in the Judiciary wholly based on a practical standpoint and day–to–day procedure.

CASES DECIDED:

• In a landmark decision pronounced by Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, The Supreme Court in STATE OF M. P VS BHUPENDRA YADAV stated that a mere acquittal cannot allow a candidate to be nominated if the offense is a heinous one, and the acquittal was on the grounds such as “Benefit of Doubt.” Whether or not a candidate is fit to be elected depends on the employer after carefully examining and assessing the background of the acquisition and grounds of acquittal, whether factual or technical.
• In STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS GULZARILAL TANDON, decided by a bench of Justices A. D. Koshal and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, The Supreme Court stated that when the evidence on the sides of the accused and petitioner are equally balanced, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused since the requisite of proving beyond a reasonable doubt is not fulfilled.
•  In SAROJINI & ORS VS STATE OF M. P. & ORS, presided over by Justices Kuldip Singh and K. Ramaswamy, The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court, which had granted acquittal to the accused on the benefit of the Doubt. The ratio laid down in State VS GulzarilalTandon was also carefully observed. The appellant mother-son had murdered their Daughter-in-law/wife for the insatiable thirst of dowry.
• In GURBACHAN SINGH VS SATPAL SINGH& ORS, Justices SabyasachiMukharji and B. C. Ray of The Supreme Court put forward the following –

Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts of lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence.  Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.