Duty of prosecution

Weak and infirm evidence must lose its worth particularly when it is a case of capital charge.

Even if a single or slightest doubt arises from the evidence, it must be extended to the accused, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right

Such doubt should be sufficient to discredit the prosecution's story.

Prosecution had to establish its case and no adverse findings could be drawn in favour of the prosecution solely on the basis of the statement of the accused.

It is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecution is bound to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

Prosecution is bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Benefit of any doubt arising in the case of prosecution goes to the accused as a matter of right not grace.

In order to connect an accused with the commission of an offence, the prosecution must produce concrete and confidence inspiring evidence connecting his neck with the alleged crime.

Prosecution in all circumstances is under strict obligation to prove its case independently but not at the strength of weakness of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence.

Prosecution is bound to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, but no such duty is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence.

Prosecution is primarily supposed to establish guilt against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt by bringing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence for the purpose of awarding conviction

To convict a person on a capital charge, evidence should be of high quality and good standard.

Prosecution is bound under the law to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt but no such duty is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence.

Prosecution was to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it could not take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence.

Prosecution is bound under the law to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, but no such duty is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence

Conviction must be based and founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Mere presence of witness at the spot is not sufficient to believe whatever the witness says but his evidence being natural, direct and confidence inspiring are sine qua non.

Prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, benefit of the same must go to the accused.

Prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt to an accused, is bound to prove its case through worthy, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence.

Slight difference existed in the manner and standard of proof in the cases registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but the prosecution is bound to discharge the onus of proof

In terms of S. 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, some departure to said general principle has been introduced, still the prosecution cannot be absolved from its duty to discharge the onus of proof

Initial onus of proof lies upon the prosecution and once it is discharged then the accused would be burdened to prove the contrary in terms of principles laid down in S. 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

If there was a single circumstance, which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then the accused would be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.

Prosecution is bound under the law to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, but no such duty is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence.

Prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt as the conviction cannot be based on high probabilities

Suspicion cannot take place of proof.

Prosecution had to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defence.

Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of defence.

Existence of a single circumstance which would create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case was sufficient to give benefit of the same to accused.

Prosecution, primarily was duty bound to establish guilt against accused without any shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and reliable evidence having intrinsic worth to enable the court to draw conclusions; that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing accusation against accused; and if it would come to the conclusion that the charges so imputed against accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt then accused would become entitled for acquittal

If any single and slightest doubt was created, benefit of it must go to accused; and that was sufficient to discredit the prosecution story

Person charged with criminal offence, was to be saddled with the liability, only if prosecution had established its case against him beyond all reasonable doubts, otherwise not.

Prosecution was required to prove its case against accused person beyond any shadow of doubt; and the defence version was to be taken into consideration after evaluating the prosecution evidence to find out whether same inspired confidence or not.

Stamp of injury on witness would only indicate the presence of witness at the relevant time, but the same was not the guarantee of the truthfulness

General rule of appreciation of evidence was that want of interest or absence of enmity, would not stamp the statement of particular witness with presumption of truth; and that much would depend on the intrinsic value of the statement of a witness

Real test was as to whether the statement of a witness was in consonance with the probabilities, whether it would fit in with the other evidence; and whether it inspired confidence.

If a specific motive had been alleged by the prosecution, then it was duty of the prosecution to establish said motive through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence

Non-proof of motive could be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of accused.

Prosecution had the basic and prime duty to prove its case against the accused persons by producing cogent, relevant, strong, convincing, unimpeachable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence to prove the charge.