The document discusses the legal concept of "benefit of the doubt" in criminal law. It defines benefit of the doubt as accepting someone as honest or deserving of trust despite uncertainties. Under criminal law, if prosecutors fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Case law examples show that reasonable doubt arises from fair consideration of evidence, and if an investigation is inefficient, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The document discusses the legal concept of "benefit of the doubt" in criminal law. It defines benefit of the doubt as accepting someone as honest or deserving of trust despite uncertainties. Under criminal law, if prosecutors fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Case law examples show that reasonable doubt arises from fair consideration of evidence, and if an investigation is inefficient, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The document discusses the legal concept of "benefit of the doubt" in criminal law. It defines benefit of the doubt as accepting someone as honest or deserving of trust despite uncertainties. Under criminal law, if prosecutors fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Case law examples show that reasonable doubt arises from fair consideration of evidence, and if an investigation is inefficient, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The document discusses the legal concept of "benefit of the doubt" in criminal law. It defines benefit of the doubt as accepting someone as honest or deserving of trust despite uncertainties. Under criminal law, if prosecutors fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Case law examples show that reasonable doubt arises from fair consideration of evidence, and if an investigation is inefficient, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘Benefit of the
Doubt’ as the state of accepting something or someone as honest or deserving of trust even though there are doubts. In terms of Criminal law, the accused would be entitled to an acquittal because the prosecution has failed to discharge its special burden of eliminating doubts. The accused may have failed to prove his plea but he gets a ‘benefit’ which, whether called ‘the benefit of the exception pleaded’ or ‘of doubt’ on available to him only because he has succeeded in throwing the existence of an ingredient of the offence into the region of reasonable doubt. ‘Reasonable doubt’ is a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof.
Here are some relevant case laws with excerpts about the benefits of doubt.
Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
It can be argued that the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ is vague in nature and the standard of ‘burden of proof contemplated under Section 105 should be somewhat specific; therefore, it is difficult to reconcile both. But the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind. The ‘reasonable doubt’ is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words ‘proved’, ‘disproved’ and ‘not proved’ lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, ‘believe it to exist’ and secondly in which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man and now we come to the third stage where in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by ‘a prudent man’. Bhag Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. The evidence adduced in this case is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accused in this case have falsified the accounts and they have also forged the documents in order to commit offences charged against them. Therefore, the evidence on record is not conclusive to come to a conclusion that the accused are guilty of offences charged against them. Moreover, in this case a civil suit is pending for the realisation of the amount with respect to the supply of yarn, dyes and chemicals by virtue of the bills relied on by the prosecution. In the light of the pendency of the suit a genuine doubt is created in the mind of this court as to whether the offence charged against the accused is real. So, benefit of doubt arisen out of the evidence adduced in this case will certainly go to the accused.’
CONCLUSION: According to Supreme Court, sourced by
an article published by ‘The Hindu’ on December 18th of 2018 Supreme Court stated that the Benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. The following article quoted the supreme court of the judgement in a 17-year-old case of murder and rioting in Uttar Pradesh. The ruling stated – ‘“The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused,” A Bench of Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar observed in a verdict pronounced on December 10 for the given murder case – “The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies,”