Criminal Trial

Human testimony is not expected to be devoid of variance, as individuals may have recalled and express facts differently, even when describing the same event

Law recognizes that such discrepancies are natural and, in the absence of material contradictions that undermine the prosecution's version of events, these cannot be treated as sufficient grounds for acquittal.

Guilty state of mind is immaterial or neither here nor there to a strict liability offences.

If two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of evidence, then view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to.

Benefit of doubt, however slight, would always go to the accused.

Where there is a doubt in the case against the accused, the benefit of that doubt must accrue as of right in the accused's favour.

If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same will be sufficient to acquit the accused.

Even a single circumstance which created a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind would be sufficient to entitle an accused to such benefit, not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of legal right.

Where the prosecution's case is fraught with material contradictions and is not free from doubt, the benefit thereof must be extended to the accused, not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of right.

If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same would be sufficient to acquit the accused.

Substitution of the real offender with an innocent person, especially by closely related witnesses who had suffered the trauma of losing a near relative, was an extremely rare phenomenon and was not to be lightly presumed.

If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same is sufficient to acquit the accused.

If prosecution evidence regarding ocular account, recovery of weapons of offence and medical evidence is disbelieved, accused cannot be convicted and sentenced merely on the basis of motive alleged against them

Motive is a double edged weapon, which can be a reason for commission of offence and at the same time it may be a reason of false involvement of an accused in a case.

If a prosecution witness makes dishonest improvement in his statement regarding material aspects of the case or he makes dishonest improvement in his statement to bring his evidence in line with medical evidence, such witness is not worthy of reliance.

If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same would be sufficient to acquit the accused.

Medical evidence is only supportive evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury,nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant.

When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence.

Conclusion of guilt must be reached by collective application of various species of circumstantial evidence, with one end of the chain touching deceased individual and the other touching the neck of accused individuals

If any link in such chain is absent, the entire chain is disrupted and no conviction can be recorded in such a situation.

Theory of last seen together, is one where two persons are seen together alive and after an interval of time one of them is found alive and the other dead

If period between the two is short then an inference can be drawn that the person alive is author of the other's death

Time gap between the sighting and the occurrence should be such that possibility of someone else committing the crime could be ruled out.

Chance witness is a witness who claims that he or she was present at crime scene at the fateful time and that his presence there was by sheer chance while in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and in the normal course of events he or she was not supposed to be present at the scene

Admissibility and evidentiary value of a witness falling in the category of a chance witness, depends on explanation given by such witness regarding his or her presence and to what extent a court would find it plausible, convincing and the testimony of such a witness to be confidence expiring

Testimony of a chance witness requires strong corroboration

Evidentiary value of a witness depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury(s), nature of the injury(s), kind of weapon used in the commission of offence, but is not able to identify the assailant(s).

Interested witness is one who has motive to falsely implicate or has previous enmity with the person involved.

In the absence of direct evidence, a conviction can be secured if the chain of circumstantial evidence remains unbroken, directly linking the commission of the offence to the accused.

Benefit of any doubt that arises in a prudent mind must be given to the accused, not as a favor but as a right.

Accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance, which created doubts in the prosecution story.

Single circumstance that created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitled him to that benefit, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.

Single reasonable doubt qua the guilt of the accused would be sufficient to acquit him of the charge.

Where evidence creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story, its benefit has to be given to the accused without any reservation, and there is no alternative but to acquit the accused by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Absence of motive will hardly be a circumstance for the acquittal of an accused, provided the prosecution otherwise succeeds in establishing its charge and in proving the guilt of the accused.

Mere relationship of the witnesses will hardly be a ground for excluding their presence on the spot, unless the defence succeeds to convince that the witnesses have an interest to falsely implicate.

Even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient, the acquit an accused.

If testimony of the witnesses of ocular account, who are chance witnesses, remains uncorroborated, then it is highly unsafe to rely upon their testimony.

Single worth reliable doubt is sufficient enough to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted.

All the pieces of circumstantial evidence should be so linked that it should give the picture of a complete chain, one corner of which should touch the neck of the deceased and other corner the neck of the accused

Absence of a single link would destroy the entire chain.

Motive is a double-edged weapon which cuts both sides in like manner, as such, false implication of accused by complainant because of the motive so set up could not be ruled out.

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be completed and unbroken, and from the dead body of a victim the unbroken chain of events should link that chain to the accused

Any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Single doubt created in the prosecution case would be sufficient to be resolved in favour of the accused.

Benefit of every inconsistency, loophole or contradiction which pricked the judicious mind must be extended to the accused, not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right.

Even a single worth reliable doubt is sufficient enough to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted.

Medical evidence confirms the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries

However, medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused/ respondents as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight.

Abscondence alone is not a proof of guilt of an accused person.

Single doubt created in the prosecution case is sufficient to be resolved in favour of the accused.

Single worth reliable doubt would be sufficient enough to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted.

Even a single reasonable doubt would be sufficient to record acquittal.

Single doubt is sufficient to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted.

Even a single doubt if found reasonable would be sufficient to acquit the accused, giving him/them benefit of doubt because bundle of doubts are not required to extend the legal benefit to the accused.

Single dent in case of prosecution would be sufficient for acquittal.

One reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused.

Substitution of real culprit where the eye-witnesses lost their close kith and kin is a rare phenomenon.

If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person was available, then such benefit would be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence

Circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused could be reached.