Suspicion

Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and suspicion cannot replace proof.

Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take place of conclusive proof, which is required for convicting and awarding sentence to an accused for a capital charge.

Suspicion, howsoever, grave or strong, can never be a proper substitute for the standard of proof required in a criminal case, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

Suspicion, howsoever strong, could not take place of the legal evidence and conviction could not be awarded on the basis of suspicion.

Suspicion howsoever grave or strong, could not be a proper substitute for the standard of proof required in a criminal case, which was to be proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt.

Mere suspicion, however grave or strong, can never be a proper substitute for the standard of proof required in a criminal case.

Suspicion, howsoever grave it might be, could never be treated as a substitute for proof.

Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it might be, could never be treated as a substitute for proof.

Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it might be, could never be treated as a substitute for proof.

Suspicion, howsoever strong, could never be considered proof of any fact.

Suspicion, however grave it might be, could never be treated as a substitute for proof.

Suspicion howsoever strong could not take place of conclusive proof, which was required for convicting and awarding sentence to an accused for a capital charge.

Suspicion, however, strong, could not take the place of proof.

Suspicion, however, strong could not take the place of proof.

Suspicion howsoever grave or strong could not be a proper substitute for proof required in a criminal case.

Suspicion howsoever grave or strong could never be a proper substitute for beyond reasonable doubt proof required in a criminal case.

Mere suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of evidence connecting accused regarding his guilt.

Court may err in letting off hundred guilty but should not convict one innocent person on the basis of suspicion.

Complainant alleged that he had deposited his loan amount against two vouchers but accused had misappropriated his amount and it was not deposited in the bank

Validity

Alleged occurrence took place six years back and inordinate delay of six years in lodging F.I.R. was not sufficiently explained

Complainant himself stated in F.I.R. that he paid back the amount by way of two vouchers to bank

Record revealed that loan was advanced in the name of a Cooperative Society which was received by complainant himself as treasurer of that society against two receipts

Nothing was available on the record to show that accused had ever received any amount of loan

No direct evidence with prosecution to connect accused with alleged forgery, fabrication or fraud or any connivance with any employee of Cooperative Society in preparation of any bogus society

Marginal witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not implicate accused and the case against him was merely on the basis of suspicion

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Suspicion howsoever strong it may be by itself cannot take place of proof.

Suspicion howsoever grave or strong can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.

Despite the place of occurrence being a very busy place, not a single witness of the locality was either cited or produced before the Trial Court

Eye-witnesses were residents of the village at a distance of three or four Kilometers front the place of occurrence

Ocular testimony was against medical evidence, mutually destructive and replete with very material contradictions incapable of being reconciled

None of the prosecution witnesses had reported the matter to the police although police station was only two furlongs away from the place of incident

Non-registration of the case at the police station, had prima facie led to the prosecution that the story of firing had been prepared at the spot after due deliberations

Recovery of pistol at the instance of accused was inconsequential as no crime empty was recovered from the spot and recovery witnesses were not the residents of the locality

Motive for the incident was not proved by any independent evidence

Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot at the relevant tine was doubtful

Presumption or suspicion howsoever strong could not take the shape of proof

Accused was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.

Suspicion, however, strong, could never be a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal case.

Cannot form basis of conviction for major charge such as murder.