Presumption of Innocence

« »

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Chandra Babu @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Another has held that:

Presumption until proven guilty is not merely a legal right but is a fundamental human right of a person.
The Courts must stick to the right of personal liberty and the standards of reasonableness guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI).

In the present case, there were four accused out of which one died during the pendency of case (Appellants).
The prosecution witness was the brother of the victim who died due to alleged attacks by the appellants.
It was contented by the prosecution before the Sessions Court that the accused attacked the deceased victim by stabbing him in the abdomen which caused his death.
The Sessions Court, based on the statements given by the witness and other relevant evidence, found the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, the accused appealed before the Kerala High Court.
The accused stated that the witness’s statement had discrepancies and the evidence regarding recovery of murder weapon was also not reliable.

The High Court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the crime as there were no traces of blood found at the alleged crime scene.
The Court also observed that there were discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution and the appellants succeeded in creating reasonable doubt.
It was further added by the High Court that the prosecution had not presented enough material before the court and the material presented was distorted.
The court also added that the prosecution case has many discrepancies, and the investigating agency has failed to investigate and establish the crime.
The Court held that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely based on suspicious circumstances.
The Kerala High Court, therefore, accepted the accused's appeal and set aside the Sessions Court order.

About:

During the criminal proceedings both the parties are to be treated equally to meet the ends of justice.
Negliegent in such cases may lead to miscarriage of justice.
The accused has the right to be treated as innocent until his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Burden of proving the facts always lies on the person asserting it as explicitly given under Section 101 and Section 102 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. (now covered under Section 104 and Section 105 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023)
The Presumption of innocence doesn’t shift the burden on the prosecution, but it states that the burden begins with the prosecution only.

Importance of Presumption of Innocence:

The principle of presumption of innocence is not merely a right but principle for the state to exercise its coercive powers.
The principle of presumption safeguards the right of the individual against wrong convictions.
The right of fair trial is the key for bringing the right to presume innocent until proven guilty.
It obliges the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence which has been charged against the accused.
Anything contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence would be against justice and will result in miscarriage of justice.
Presumption of Innocence is a human right which cannot be neglected.
Article 14 and Article 21 of the COI incorporate this principle which makes it a fundamental right.

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973):
- The Supreme Court in this case held that a person cannot be held guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Proving beyond reasonable doubt means unless the prosecution succeeds in rebutting the contentions presented by the accused with reliable evidences he cannot be held guilty.
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962):
- The Supreme Court in this case held that the general principle is presumption of innocence.
- The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.