THREE PRINCIPLES OF

CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
25APR20154 Comments
by Author Y.Srinivasa Rao Judge in RECENT ARTICLES ON LAW- WRITTEN BY A
JUDGE Tags: reasonable doubt

7 Votes

THREE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

INTRODUCTION:-
Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions, as has been
observed in Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR 2773.In a criminal trial, accused is
presumed to be innocent. This is a general rule of evidence. The sound Latin maxim, Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat indicates that the burden of proof is on he who asserts, not on he who
denies. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same
strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. Articles 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to
be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defence..

Basically, there are three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. Those are: 1. prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt ; 2. the accused must be presumed to be innocent; and 3. the
onus of the prosecution never shifts. In a criminal trial it is not at all obligatory on the accused to
produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose of proving his version he can rely on
the admissions made by prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. As was
held in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat: 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361, there
is no conflict between the general burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is always
on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make
out his defence of insanity.

As was observed in Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa : 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1) 439, (Also
see: Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 319. 324 ), three
principles of criminal jurisprudence which are well settled are as under:
(i) that the onus ties affirmatively on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weak-
ness or falsity of the defence version while prov-
ing its case;
(ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must
be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be
guilty; and
(iii) that the onus of the prosecution never
shifts.
Similarly, the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State (Cbi): 139 (2007)
DLT 407, I (2007) DMC 654, it was observed that three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence
are well settled and they are as follows: i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the
defense version while proving its case; ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and iii) that the onus of the prosecution shifts.

THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:-

In the case of Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, 1975 AIR 241, the Honble Supreme
Court pointed out as follows:- The rule of benefits of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow
bending to every whif of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of
legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct. As has been held in Kali Ram vs
State Of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR 2773, one of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept
in view in our system (1) Cr. App.Ho.26 of 1970 decided on August 27, 1973 of administration of
justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless
that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be
guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon
the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the
guilt of the accused. There is needless to refer to all rulings in this article inasmuch as there are catena
of rulings as to this principle of law.
The Law Commission of India, forty-seventh report on the trial and puni$i-iiment of social and
ecqnomeiii offences, It was observed that As has been observed-No rule of criminal law is of more
importance than that which requires the prosecution to prove the accuseds guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In the rst place this means that it is for the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt and not
for the latter to establish his innocence ; he is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Secondly, they must satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In 2014, the Honble Apex Court reiterated this general principle of proving case of prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt in the following cases,
1. Puran Chand vs State Of H.P
2. Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura
3. Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar
4. Nallabothu Ramulu @ Setharamaiah vs State Of A.P
5. State Of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai
6. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka
7. State Of Rajasthan vs Manoj Kumar
8. Basappa vs State Of Karnataka
9. Birju vs State Of M.P
10. Ramesh Vithal Patil vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:-

As was held by the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Katcherla Venkata Sunil vs
Dr. Vanguri Seshumamba And Ors: 2008 CriLJ 853, the presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. It was held in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi
V. Rani Jethmalani that assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice
and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the
hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or availability of legal services or any like grievance.
In Abdul Nazar Madani V. State of T.N the Apex Court stated that the purpose of the criminal trial is
to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The apprehension of
not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based
upon conjectures and surmises.
Recently, in 2015, the Honble Supreme Court of India applied this general rule of presumption of
innocence in the following cases. 1. Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana; 2. Sher Singh @ Partapa vs
State Of Haryana; 3.Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India; 4. Inder Singh & Ors vs State Of
Rajasthan; 5.Raja @ Rajinder vs State Of Haryana; 6.Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan; 7.Pawan
Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State Of U.P. & Anr; 8. Bhim Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand 9.
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab; and 10. Jivendra Kumar vs Jaidrath Singh & Ors.
THE ONUS OF THE PROSECUTION NEVER SHIFTS.
As was held by the Honble Apex Court in C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala, the
onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As
soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts toprosecution which still has to discharge its
original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Jhangan Vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736). It was observed in John
Manjooran vs C.M. Stephen And Ors, 1973 CriLJ 1722, basically, the original onus never shifts and the
prosecution has. at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
To know more please refer to the ruling Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa : 1977 AIR 170, 1977
SCR (1) 439, and Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 319.
324 ).

THE DOCTRINE OF BURDEN OF PROOF:-

As was observed in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat: 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR
(7) 361, the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the
plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions:
(1).The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence
with the requisite, mensrea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the
beginning to the end of the trial.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime,
in the sense laid down by s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before
the court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon
him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

n a party to civil proceedings.

(3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he
committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may
raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the
offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the
accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.

In the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa, Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR
(1) 439, it was observed that under section 105 of the Evidence Act the onus of proving exceptions
mentioned in the Indian Penal Code lieson the accused but the said section does not at all indicate the
nature and the standard of proof required. It is suffi-cient if the, accused is able to prove his case by
thestandard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by section 5 of the Evidence Act.

It was observed in Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa: 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1) 439 (see also:
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 SCR 235, 241 and State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup & Anr.
[1975] 1 S.C.R. 409, 416-17)
The accused succeeds if the probability of his version
throws doubt on the presecution case. He need not prove his
case to the hilt. It is sufficient for the defence to give
a version which competes in probability with the prosecution
version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on
the prosecution case entailing its rejection by the court.
EXCEPTION TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES:-
In Harbha- jan Singh v. State of Punjab (( [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235, 241 ) the Honble Apex Court observed
as follows:
But the question which often arises and has been frequently considered by judicial decisions is
whether the nature and extent of the onus of proof placed on an accused person who claims the
benefit of an Exception is exactly the same as the nature and extent of the onus placed on the
prosecution in a criminal case; and there is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that
where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not re- quired to discharge that burden by
leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed
while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but
that is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim
that his case falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case
fails under an Exception, law treats the onus as dis- charged if the accused person succeeds in
proving a preponderance of probability. As soon as the preponderance of probability is proved, the
burden shifts to. the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus. It must be remembered
that basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION:-
The concept of reasonable doubt as a standard requirement in criminal jurisprudence. In 1935, in
the case of Woolmington Vs.DPP, (1935) UKHL Page 1, the principle of proof beyond all reasonable
doubt was expounded. To convict an accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish his guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt. Such reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence
of evidence on the face of record. Only reasonable doubt favours accused but not all doubts. The
burden of prosecution never shifts in a criminal case. Whenever a reasonable doubt appears on the
face of record, it goes to accused. Benefit of doubt is a right of accused. Although accused is presumed
to be innocent; and his guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, these principles are not
aware of to most of the villagers in India. I suggest that more films on this concept be released to
create awaness of the rights of accused. In 2014, a Canadian Crime thriller movie was released in
abroad with a title Reasonable Doubt . This film is known as The Good Samaritan. To sum up, in
short, Information Technology must widely be used to create awareness to the people as all the rights
of accused. Wide Publication must be given as to the rights of accused to create awareness in the
public. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is
never based upon sympathy or prejudice.
-x-