Search Blog

Tuesday, May 7

Suspicion however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof – SC in Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan


Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 931-932 of 2009, Decided on May 6, 2013


The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:


Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be’ proved and `will be proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense”. [Para 17]

The Court noted following case laws:

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343;

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622;

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622;

Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702;

Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 3206;

Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249;


State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017;

Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979


To see full text follow the link: