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: