Introduction: The Benefit of Doubt

The consensus is that no one is guilty until proven guilty. Similarly, no one is guilty
until a court of law declares them so. In legal terms, this is known as the “benefit of
doubt“. If the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, the court
will find the defendant not guilty. For a claim to be proven in court, it must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt in the view of the typical jury.
Is it possible to challenge the guilt
or innocence of a person?
If there is even a trace of uncertainty, the accused has the upper hand.
 When you first meet someone, it is difficult to determine whether you can trust
them. Even though they appear kind, you do not know what they want. Is their
generosity motivated by a desire to obtain something from you? Or, are they telling
the truth when they claim their desire to be your friend? In many cases, giving
someone the benefit of the doubt might assist you to avoid making poor decisions.
There must have been a reason why things transpired as they did, and to give someone the
benefit of the doubt is to assume that they did not intend to hurt you or do something evil.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt implies that you have faith in them despite
lacking sufficient information to make a sound judgement. Whether or whether you give
someone the benefit of the doubt relies on a variety of factors, including your personality
and the circumstances.
 Is it essential to presume the best
about others?
People you can rely on who does what is best for you and what you expect fr0m them. When you have faith in someone,
you offer them the opportunity to disprove you. You disregard any red flags or warning indicators because you believe
others will act in your best interest.
If you give someone the benefit of the doubt, you may avoid
making a poor decision. You can give them the benefit of the
doubt if you do not know what they want or believe they can
be entirely trusted.
 When is it acceptable to give the
benefit of doubt to someone?
You should not always give the benefit of the doubt to others. There are occasions when one should not. No one deserves
the benefit of the doubt when they have harmed you or another individual. If you suspect someone of lying or deceiving
you, you should not trust them.
 You should not give someone the benefit of the doubt if they have done
anything to you that is obviously cruel or violates your personal limits.
Never give someone the benefit of the doubt after they have harmed you or
someone else. If someone has committed a wrongdoing, it is unwise to deny
them a second chance.
 Those who merit a second chance should be granted one. Even if you believe
someone does not merit another chance, offer them one nevertheless. This is a way
to provide the benefit of the doubt to someone when you ordinarily wouldn’t. You
may choose to offer the individual a second opportunity if you believe they have
learnt from their error and will not repeat it.
 This is an excellent method to give someone a second chance,
particularly if they are important to you. If you believe that someone
wants to change but has been unsuccessful thus far, you may wish to
give them another chance.
 If a person has been declared not guilty but has been accused of
horrific crimes, they must be evaluated to determine if they are eligible
for government employment. This was decided in the landmark case of
the State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena, 2022 SC
 In the United States, a benefit of the doubt is an exception to the general rule
that in criminal cases, it is presumed that the accused person did not commit a
crime. This means that if there are two possibilities for what happened and one
possibility is more likely than another, then you can use this as evidence to
prove your innocence.
In other words, if you have been charged with murder but there are two
possible explanations for how someone died- one being accidental and
one being intentional - then you may be able to argue that the second
explanation should be considered because it is more likely than the
first.
 Excessive adherence to the rule of benefit of the doubt must not breed irrational
doubts or lingering distrust, destroying social defense. Justice cannot be rendered
sterile on the grounds that it is preferable to let a hundred guilty people go free than
to punish one innocent person. Allowing the guilty to flee is not following the law.
(Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and other cases,1990 SC).
 The prosecution is not obligated to respond to every
and all of the accused’s theories (State of U.P. v. Ashok
Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840).
 Reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based on reason and
common sense, not a fictitious, minor, or just probable
doubt. It must emerge from the case’s evidence.
 It is said that if a case is proved perfectly, it is artificial; if a case contains some
flaws that are unavoidable since humans are prone to error, it is suggested that it is
too imperfect. One might ask if, in order to prevent a single innocent person from
being punished, several guilty people must be allowed to escape.-Law Commission
of India One Hundred Eightieth Report.
Given the benefit of the doubt, a POCSO order was overturned.
Arindam Lodh J. threw out Case No. Special (POCSO) 21 of
2018, which was issued by the special judge (POCSO) in West
Tripura Agartala, on July 8, 2020.
 She had resided with her aunt Rakhal Saha in Agartala’s Granduse Para since
she was a toddler. During this time, they were acquainted, which led to the
development of romantic impulses. During her stay, he repeatedly attempted to
impose himself against her will. On March 8, 2017, it was resolved amicably at
the residence of Rakhal Saha.
The victim alleged that instead of being moved to East
Agartala Women’s P.S., she was escorted to a Jogendra
Nagar residence. These amenities will make a guest’s
stay unforgettable.
 The victim was sent to the doctor as soon as she became ill, who verified her
pregnancy. The informant’s mother asked the accused’s parents for permission
to marry the victim, but they refused. On October 26, 2017, the West Agartala
Women P.S. received an official report from the expectant woman who was six
months along.
Mr Lodh, the well-known defence attorney for the
appellant, stated that the prosecution had failed to
prove the components of Section 90 of the Indian
Penal Code in this case.
 He argued that both parties consented to the development of a physical
relationship and that the convict made no promises in furtherance of having
bad faith or intents; rather, both the accused and the victim created
consenting adult physical relationships out of love and passion. His
reasoning was persuasive.
 Judge P.P. Ghosh questioned the intentions of the appellant, asking
why he did not marry the girl if he had no ill intent or malice.
According to the Assistant Public Defender, all of the requirements of
Section 90 were met in this instance.
The Court of Appeal reversed Special (POCSO) Case No. 21 of
2018 based on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. the State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, and acquitted Priyangan Saha
based on the presumption of innocence.
Is it possible to obtain a conviction based
solely on the testimony of the
complainant?
Due to anomalies in the evidence, the DSR Sri Lankan Court of Appeal Division of Devika Abeyratne and P.
Kumararatnam, JJ., granted an appeal, reversed the appellant’s conviction and sentence, and exonerated him of bribery
allegations.
 Under Sections 19(b) and 19(c) of the Bribery Act, a High Court
indictment was filed against the accused-appellant, who was the
Principal of Mahanama Navodya School in Panadura, at the direction of
the Director-General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of
Bribery or Corruption.
 According to the appellant’s attorney, the evidence of
solicitation was insufficient because the date, location, and
time of the alleged offence were not established, and the
trial judge failed to notice this.
 The Court ruled that there was no minimum number of witnesses required
to prove a fact. This was hardly a surprise to anyone. In Sunil v. AG, 1999
(3) SLR p. 191, the prosecution was forced to corroborate the evidence if
the court was not convinced by the witness’s solo testimony’s cogency and
persuasiveness.
The testimony of an uncorroborated complainant can
be used to convict someone of solicitation under the
Bribery Act, according to Liyanage v. Attorney, 2 SLR
111 CA (1978-79).
 The evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 contained contradictions that the court could
not dismiss as minor inconsistencies. The Court deemed it risky to rely entirely
on PW 1’s evidence due to the gravity of the charge against the appellant and the
absence of a convincing explanation for why Hansani was not called as a
prosecution witness.
 In 2009, the Supreme Court stated in K Padmathillake v.
Director-General of the Commission to investigate allegations
of bribery or corruption that allegations of bribery and
corruption are not actionable.
“Regarding evidence evaluation, there are no hard and fast guidelines.
In the end, it’s a fact, and each case must be decided based on the
current facts. It is impossible to believe a witness who contradicts
himself or herself regarding a vital event or scenario.”
 It was thought hazardous to let PW 1’s uncorroborated testimony serve
as the only foundation for the conviction. A defendant is entitled to be
not guilty by reason of evidence defence if they can prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that they were not soliciting on the day specified in the
indictment.
Acquittal on the benefit of doubt is
an injustice to the victim
 An unjust acquittal is as much a miscarriage of
justice as an unjust conviction is. State of UP vs.
Krishna Gopal and Anr. 1988 (3) SC.
 Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful
doubts or lingering suspicion 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 Gurbachan
Singh vs. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209.
 Prosecution is not required to meet any and every
hypothesis put forward by the accused. State of UP vs.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
 A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or
merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon
reason and common sense. It must grow out of the
evidence in the case.
 If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial' if a case has
some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued
that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous
hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many
guilty persons must be allowed to escape.
Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not fetish , as it was observed in Inder
Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1978 SC 1091. Vague hunches
cannot take place of judicial evaluation.
 "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no
innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does
not escape. Both are public duties ". As held by Viscount Simon in Stirland
vs. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC (PC) 315 quoted in State of UP
vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC.
 Sometimes justice and life are larger than law. Justice is a
word which has a larger connotation and has to be understood
in its proper perspective and spirit in the background of given
facts and circumstances.
The conscience of the court can never be bound by any
rule, but that is coming itself, dictates the
consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment.
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest
for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other
than truth - Shivaji Sahebrao Bobadev vs. State of
Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCR 489.
 In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall the
observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [1974 (1) SCR 489 (492-
493)] :
"......The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at
the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all
acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the
community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of
excalating crime and escape.
 The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished
principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which
runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to
embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt......."
 The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the
expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals
are alwaysgood regardless of justice to the victim and the community,
demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and
escape.
The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand
guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false
dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise
any practical system of justice will breakdown and lose credibility
with the community.
If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical
disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to apublic demand for
harsher legal presumptions against indicated 'persons' and more
severe punishment of those who are found guilty.
Jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence
must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make
criminal justice potent and realistic.
 A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as
good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of pre-
ponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. Certainly, inthe last
analysis, reasonable doubts must operate to the advantage of the
appellant.
".......a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal
of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the
innocent....."- Gangadhar Behera and Ors. vs. State of
Orissa, JT 2002 (8) SC