YOGESH NARAYAN SASTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARA-SHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke for the appellant, learned APP Ms. Deshmukh for the State and Mr. Shete, Advocate [appointed] for the victim.

(2.) A question which falls for consideration in the appeal is whether prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt since according to the learned Advocate for the appellant the documents field on record clearly shows that absolutely no material available to prove the charge.

(3.) In order to deal with the said question, concept of reasonable doubt, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt will have to be tested in the light of observations given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ray Vs Madan Ray and others reported in 2003 (12) SCC 395. Reasonable doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense.