Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., has held that the question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.

What was the Background of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the complainant (Shashi Karan) stated in the written complaint, that his mother-in-law was cremated in the land of Kailash Prasad Verma (husband of wife’s sister).
• When the complainant along with Kailash Prasad Verma arrived at the place for taking Asthi Kalash of their mother-in-law, the accused Sushil Chaudhari along with his associates wrongfully restrained them and assaulted them and stole Rs. 3,000.
• The accused were charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• During the trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
• None of the witnesses made any allegation against the accused, Sushil Chaudhari or others.
• Due to the lack of supporting evidence and the presence of doubt in the factual circumstances, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on benefit of doubt.
• Thereafter, an appeal has been filed before the High Court of Patna that acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt casts stigma on their reputation and the said phrase should be declared to be expunged from the impugned order.
• The High Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed the question of giving benefit of doubt by the Trial Court arises when from the evidence on record, it appears that two views one in support of the prosecution and other in support of the defence are found, the Court should accept the view that is in favor of the accused.
• The Court further stated that the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt when he is acquitted. But when there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons, they will be simply acquitted. The question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.

What is the Benefit of Doubt?

• The fundamental principle, upon which the whole structure of our Criminal Jurisprudence is based, is that burden of proving every essential ingredient of the offence lies upon the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent till the offence is proved against him beyond all reasonable doubt.
• In legal terms, this is known as the “benefit of doubt”. If the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, the court will find the defendant not guilty.
• Under this concept, the defendant is considered to be acquitted by the court if his or her offence has not been established, which means when the prosecution fails to provide the legal evidence against the defendant or an accused of the offence he or she has committed.
• The question of doubt arises only when the evidence against the accused is of such character that the Court is not in a position to give a categorical finding of facts regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. Doubt and certainty cannot co-exist. The existence of one automatically vanishes the existence of other.