Supreme Court Reiterates That Guilt Has To Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt For Convicting An Accused
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-09-16 06:33:54
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot be convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder solely on the basis of post-mortem report if there was no corroborating evidence to prove his involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The guilt of the accused has to be proved irrefutably before convicting him.
The case before the court was about a man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the unnatural death of his wife by the trial court and later confirmed by the Patna HC. The post-mortem report confirmed that the woman died of asphyxia. The man had contended that she died of burns as she caught fire while cooking and family members could not save her despite their best efforts.
The prosecution relied on the post-mortem report to claim that the husband throttled her to death. But the Supreme Court said that since there were no eyewitnesses and evidence indicated that the relations between the couple were cordial, foul play on part of the husband cannot be assumed. The apex court examined the statements of all witnesses and evidence and came to the conclusion that since the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was not correct to convict him for the crime.
This once again confirms that the guilt of an accused has to be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt for courts to convict him. The prosecution cannot hope to get a conviction without clinching evidence. Trial courts have to be stricter in passing orders and must not convict persons if their guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. After all, Blackstone's ratio that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers" holds well in such cases. Blackstone had also said that "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously". Trial courts should keep that in mind.
