THREE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

INTRODUCTION:-
Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions, as
has been observed in Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR 2773.In a criminal
trial, accused is presumed to be innocent. This is a general rule of evidence. The sound Latin
maxim, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat indicates that the burden of proof is on
he who asserts, not on he who denies. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the
accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is
required to prove a criminal charge. Articles 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights says, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.”.

Basically, there are three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. Those are: 1.
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt ; 2. the accused must be presumed to
be innocent; and 3. the onus of the prosecution never shifts. In a criminal trial it is not at all
obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose
of proving his version he can rely on the admissions made by prosecution witnesses or on
the documents filed by the prosecution. As was held in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs
State Of Gujarat: 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361, there is no conflict between the general
burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is always on the prosecution and
which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence
of insanity.

As was observed in Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa : 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1)
439, (Also see: Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay, [1960] 3
S.C.R. 319. 324 ), three principles of criminal jurisprudence which are well settled are as
under:
(i) that the onus ties affirmatively on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weak-
ness or falsity of the defence version while prov-
ing its case;
(ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must
be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be
guilty; and
(iii) that the onus of the prosecution never
shifts.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State (Cbi):
139 (2007) DLT 407, I (2007) DMC 654, it was observed that three cardinal principles of
criminal jurisprudence are well settled and they are as follows: i) that the onus lies
affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot
derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving its case; ii)
that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to
be guilty; and iii) that the onus of the prosecution shifts.

THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:-

In the case of Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, 1975 AIR 241, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court pointed out as follows:- ‘The rule of benefits of reasonable doubt does not
imply a frail willow bending to every whif of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and
must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or
direct.’ As has been held in Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR 2773, one of
the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system (1) Cr. App.Ho.26
of 1970 decided on August 27, 1973 of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a
person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is
rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the
offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the
prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of
the guilt of the accused.’ There is needless to refer to all rulings in this article inasmuch as
there are catena of rulings as to this principle of law.

The Law Commission of India, forty-seventh report on the trial and puni$i-iiment of social
and ecqnomeiii offences, It was observed that ‘As has been observed’—-“No rule of criminal
law is of more importance “than that which requires the prosecution to prove the accused’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the first place this means that it is for the prosecution to
prove the defendants guilt and not for the latter to establish his innocence ; he is presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. Secondly, they must satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.’

In 2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated this general principle of proving case of
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the following cases,
1. Puran Chand vs State Of H.P
2. Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura
3. Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar
4. Nallabothu Ramulu @ Setharamaiah … vs State Of A.P
5. State Of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai
6. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka
7. State Of Rajasthan vs Manoj Kumar
8. Basappa vs State Of Karnataka
9. Birju vs State Of M.P
10. Ramesh Vithal Patil vs State Of Karnataka & Ors
 

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:-

As was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Katcherla Venkata
Sunil vs Dr. Vanguri Seshumamba And Ors: 2008 CriLJ 853, the presumption of innocence
is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. It was held in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi V. Rani Jethmalani that assurance of a fair trial is
the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to
consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative
convenience of a party or availability of legal services or any like grievance. In Abdul Nazar
Madani V. State of T.N the Apex Court stated that the purpose of the criminal trial is to
dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The
apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable
and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises.
Recently, in 2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India applied this general rule of
‘presumption of innocence ‘ in the following cases. 1. Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana; 2.
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana; 3.Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India; 4.
Inder Singh & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan; 5.Raja @ Rajinder vs State Of Haryana; 6.Mohan
Lal vs State Of Rajasthan; 7.Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State Of U.P. & Anr; 8. Bhim
Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand 9. Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab; and 10. Jivendra
Kumar vs Jaidrath Singh & Ors.
THE ONUS OF THE PROSECUTION NEVER SHIFTS.
As was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of
Kerala, the onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a
preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts
toprosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of
establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (See
Jhangan Vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736). It was observed in John Manjooran vs C.M. Stephen
And Ors, 1973 CriLJ 1722, basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has.
at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. To
know more please refer to the ruling Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa : 1977 AIR 170,
1977 SCR (1) 439, and Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay, [1960]
3 S.C.R. 319. 324 ).

THE DOCTRINE OF BURDEN OF PROOF:-

As was observed in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat: 1964 AIR 1563,
1964 SCR (7) 361, the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the
plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions:
(1).The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed
the offence with the requisite, mensrea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the
prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed
the crime, in the sense laid down by s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it
by placing before the court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial,
but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil
proceedings.

(3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time
he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the
prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of
the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court
would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof
resting on the prosecution was not discharged.

In the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa, Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 170,
1977 SCR (1) 439, it was observed that under section 105 of the Evidence Act the onus of
proving exceptions mentioned in the Indian Penal Code lieson the accused but the said
section does not at all indicate the nature and the standard of proof required. It is suffi-cient
if the, accused is able to prove his case by thestandard of preponderance of probabilities as
envisaged by section 5 of the Evidence Act.

It was observed in Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa: 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1) 439
(see also: Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 SCR 235, 241 and State of U.P. v.
Ram Swarup & Anr. [1975] 1 S.C.R. 409, 416-17)
The accused succeeds if the probability of his version
throws doubt on the presecution case. He need not prove his
case to the hilt. It is sufficient for the defence to give
a version which competes in probability with the prosecution
version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on
the prosecution case entailing its rejection by the court.
EXCEPTION TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES:-
In Harbha- jan Singh v. State of Punjab (( [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235, 241 ) the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as follows:
“But the question which often arises and has been frequently considered by judicial
decisions is whether the nature and extent of the onus of proof placed on an accused person
who claims the benefit of an Exception is exactly the same as the nature and extent of the
onus placed on the prosecution in a criminal case; and there is consensus of judicial opinion
in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not re-
quired to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable
doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has
discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be
applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls
under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case fails
under an Exception, law treats the onus as dis- charged if the accused person succeeds “in
proving a preponderance of probability.” As soon as the preponderance of probability is
proved, the burden shifts to. the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus. It
must be remembered that basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has,
at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
CONCLUSION:-
The concept of “reasonable doubt” as a standard requirement in criminal jurisprudence. In
1935, in the case of Woolmington Vs.DPP, (1935) UKHL Page 1, the principle of ‘proof
beyond all reasonable doubt’ was expounded. To convict an accused, it is the duty of the
prosecution to establish his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Such reasonable doubt is
logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence on the face of record. Only
reasonable doubt favours accused but not all doubts. The burden of prosecution never shifts
in a criminal case. Whenever a reasonable doubt appears on the face of record, it goes to
accused. ‘Benefit of doubt’ is a right of accused. Although accused is presumed to be
innocent; and his guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, these principles are not
aware of to most of the villagers in India. I suggest that more ‘films’ on this concept be
released to create awaness of the rights of accused. In 2014, a Canadian Crime thriller movie
was released in abroad with a title ‘Reasonable Doubt ’. This film is known as ‘The Good
Samaritan’. To sum up, in short, Information Technology must widely be used to create
awareness to the people as all the rights of accused. Wide Publication must be given as to
the rights of accused to create awareness in the public. The concept of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is never based upon sympathy or
prejudice.
-x-