1968 (10) TMI 112 - HC - Indian Laws

Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Preponderance vs. Reasonable Doubt

Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors Versus The State

The court clarified that the accused must prove the exception by a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The correct method to ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 105, Indian Evidence Act.2. Burden of proof when an accused pleads an exception under the Indian Penal Code.3. Application of the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal cases.4. Comparison of Indian law with English law on burden of proof and exceptions.5. Impact of Supreme Court decisions on the interpretation of Section 105.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 105, Indian Evidence Act:Section 105 states that when a person is accused of any offense, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offense, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.The judgment clarifies that the accused must prove the exception by a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the accused needs to show that it is more probable than not that the exception applies to them.2. Burden of Proof When an Accused Pleads an Exception:The judgment discusses three modes by which the burden of proof can be discharged: (1) by proving the exception beyond all reasonable doubt; (2) by proof through preponderance of probabilities; and (3) by creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court.The court concludes that the correct method is the second one, i.e., by proof through preponderance of probabilities. This means that the accused must make out a balance of evidence in his favor, and the Court may entertain a reasonable doubt even if the balance of evidence is in favor of the prosecution.3. Application of the Principle of Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Cases:The court emphasizes that the principle of reasonable doubt is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence. It states that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts. Even if the accused fails to prove the exception, they can still be acquitted if a reasonable doubt is created regarding the prosecution's case.The judgment also notes that the accused can secure an acquittal indirectly if the evidence on record creates a doubt as regards some element which is an ingredient of the offense.4. Comparison of Indian Law with English Law on Burden of Proof and Exceptions:The judgment compares the Indian law with English law and concludes that under both systems, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, under English law, a plea of insanity is treated on the same footing as a statutory exception, whereas in Indian law, a plea of private defense is treated similarly.The court also refers to various Supreme Court decisions to highlight that the burden of proof on the accused is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.5. Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on the Interpretation of Section 105:The judgment references several Supreme Court cases, including K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, Bhikari v. State of U.P., and others, to support the interpretation that the accused must prove the exception by a preponderance of probabilities. It emphasizes that the failure of the accused to establish the exception does not absolve the prosecution from proving the ingredients of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.The court concludes that the majority decision in Parbhoo's case, which stated that the accused should create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court, needs to be qualified. The true legal position is that the accused must discharge the burden of proof by a preponderance of probabilities, and a reasonable doubt regarding an exception does not automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal unless it affects the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The court's detailed analysis reaffirms that the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove the exception by a preponderance of probabilities. However, if the evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The judgment aligns with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and clarifies the application of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal cases.