Effect of benefit of doubt on victim.

1. Introduction: The Benefit of
Doubt

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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).

16. 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).

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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).

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. “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.”

35. 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.

36. Acquittal on the benefit of doubt
is an injustice to the victim

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. "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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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)] :

48. "......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.

49. 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......."

50. 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
special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime
and escape.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. Jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed
innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic
need to make criminal justice potent and
realistic.

54. 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.

55. ".......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