The Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases is not the same as in the Civil

In criminal cases as life and liberty of the accused are involved, a strict standard of proof is required as to the guilt of the accused. It is not the preponderance of probabilities that establishes the guilt of the accused.

It is necessary that the evidence on record must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction cannot be based on the consideration that the prosecution story may be true.

The accused can only be convicted if the Court reaches the conclusion that the prosecution story must be true. Considered as a whole the prosecution story may appear to be true but between “may be true” and “must be true” there is a long distance and the whole of this distance has to be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.

If the evidence on record establishes the truth of the charge and satisfies the reason and judgment of the Court such evidence must be taken to have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt justifying conviction.

The law always requires that the conviction should be certain and not doubtful.

Otherwise, no man can be safe. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution. Upon such proof as is adduced, if there is a real and reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the same.

The defence evidence does not come up for consideration at all as the prosecution has not discharged its onus. If the prosecution story is weak it cannot gain strength from the weakness of the defence evidence. It should stand by itself.

Then again, where the circumstances of a case point to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence but at the same time there is also a reasonable probability raised by the state of evidence which is compatible with his innocence, there is no justification for the conviction of the accused. The accused must be acquitted.

But where the burden of proof relating to an issue in a case is on the accused, the standard of proof required of him is not the same as is required from the prosecution.

The accused need not establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if he shows that the preponderance of probability is in favour of his case. What is thus required of him is the standard of proof required in civil cases. Thus where the accused person claims exemption under a general exception or a special exception under the Penal Law it will be sufficient if he succeeds in proving preponderance of probabilities.

In fact, in case he pleads right of private defence, even if the evidence read as a whole, both of the prosecution and the defence, leaves the Court in doubt that the circumstances are such that the accused may have a right of private defence, the accused is entitled to that benefit of doubt.