CONTENTION 2: THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO PROVE

THE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

In Dayal Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttaranchal 1, the court emphasized that where our
criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to
an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to
all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution.
A person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established
by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. To constitute reasonable
doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response and zest for abstract
speculation.2Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all possible or
imaginary doubt but its a proof to a moral certainty as distinguished from absolute
certainty.
Apex court in Abdulla Mohammed v. State of Kerala3 explained the difference between
Burden and onus it was held that Burden of proof lies upon the person who has to
prove a fact and it never shifts, but the Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of Onus is a
continuous process in evaluation of evidence so basically the burden lies on the
Prosecution but there are times when the accused is called upon to prove that his case
falls under an exception. Then the onus is on the accused and it is considered as
discharged if the accused person succeeds in proving the preponderance of probability
in his favor and he need not prove his stand beyond reasonable doubt.
In Sher Mohammed v. Emperor4, it was observed that the fundamental doubt must be
such as a reasonable man entertains, and that it must not be the doubt of weak and

1 (2012) 8 SCC 263

2 Surendra Malik, Supreme Court on Evidence Act, Vol.1, 2013 Ed.
3 (2008(1) KLT 712)
4 AIR 1972 SC 975

vacillating mind hesitating or shirking to take decision because there is an infinitesimal

possibility of it being mistaken.
In the pertinent case, it was pointed out that the O+ blood group matched the victims
brother Yogesh blood group. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the clothes
of the deceased, the blood stained earth and the knife recovered after the blood test
were found with blood stains. Although the blood stained earth contained 3 blood
groups which were A+, B+ and O+ but the knife bore only two blood groups which were
A+ and B+ which were of the deceased. It is therefore submitted that the accused was
mistakably shown to be connected with the crime under reference.
Also, when there is no evidence to indicate a direct cause of occurrence and there are
several inconsistencies in prosecution case without any material evidence, accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt. Benefit of doubt is the condition of the mind which exists
when the Judge cannot say that they feed an abiding conviction, a moral certainty of the
truth of the charge.5
In Sucha Singh & Anr. V. State of Punjab 6, the court held that a reasonable doubt is not
an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.
In the present case according to scientific evidence it is true that the blood group is
tallying, but it is not sufficient to sustain a conviction in the present case as the even the
weapons of offence recovered only bore the blood stains of the deceased even though
the evidence lead to deceased girls brother who bore a lacerated wound on his palm.
In Hadmana Ram and Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan 7, it is a general rule, that a court can
and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated, provided that
testimony of that single witness is found out entire reliable and in that case, there will be

5 Sarkar, Law of Evidence, Vol.1. 8th Ed.

6 (2003) 7 SCC 643
7 RLW 2004 (4) Raj. 2489

no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or
suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration.
In Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra 8, the court observed that there is no
doubt that even where there is only a sole eye witness of a crime, a conviction may be
recorded against the accused concerned provided the Court which hears such witness
regards him as honest and truthful. But prudence requires that some corroboration
should be sought from the other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a
solitary witness particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to
the deceased and the accused are those against whom some motive or ill will is
suggested
In the pertinent case the statement so recorded by the police of the sole witness cannot
be taken to be sufficient by itself to raise a conclusive presumption of guilt against the
deceased girls brother Yogesh.

8 1983 (3) SCC 629