RAMRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principle of benefit of doubt, which "runs through the fabric of the criminal jurisprudence as a golden thread" has to be reiterated in this ease, since, it appears that the Judges of the Lower judiciary tend to forget this cardinal principle in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution qua the defence of the accused.

(2.) The most leading case, which is reported in AIR 1941 All 402, (Parbhoo and others v. Emperor), in an immaculate manner analyses this principle of benefit of doubt of the Bench consisting of 7 Judges was required to be constituted to state the parameters of this principle, which is a corrolary of the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence as is applied to Indian Courts that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. The historical judgment in the Allahabad case gave rise to a difference of opinion between the English Judges and the Indian Judges, the English Judges, Collister, Allsop and Braund, JJ, dissenting with the Indian Judges Iqbal Ahmad, C. J , Bajpai, Mohammad Ismail and T. N. Mulla, JJ., on the question whether this principle of English law applies in respect of burden of proof in criminal cases and whether English decisions may be referred to while deciding crimical cases in Indian Courts. The English Judges were of the view : - "The burden of proving the facts which would justify the conviction of the accused in the absence of any other facts entitling the accused to the benefit of any exception or proviso is upon the prosecution and the burden of proving the existence of any facts or circumstances which would entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any such exception or proviso is up on the accused, and the non-production of evidence or production of insufficient evidence by the accused would read the Court to decide the issue of fact against him. Therefore, an accused person is not entitled to the benefit of any exception merely because there is a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception," ; While the Indian Judges were of the view : - "In a case in which any general exception in the Penal Code is pleaded by an accused person and evidence is adduced to support such plea, but such evidence fails to satisfy the Court affirmatively of the existence of circumstances bringing the cases within the general exception pleaded, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the evidence given in support of the plea of the said general exeption) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court whether the accused person is or is not entitled to the benefit of the said exception." Braund, J., speaking for the English Judges, who were in minority, took the help of two decisions, namely, (1) Woolmington v, Director of Public Prosecutions, (1935) AC 462 and (2) Emperor v. U. Damapala, 14 Rang 666 : AIR 1937 Rang 83. Woolmington was a case decided by the House of Lords, while U. Damapala was a Full Bench decision of the Rangoon High Court. Dunkley, J., in the U. Damapala s case, held as under : - "The conclusion therefore is that if the Court either is satisfied from the examination of the accused and the evidence adduced by him, or from circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidence, that the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception or exceptions pleaded has been proved, or upon a review of all the evidence is left in reasonable doubt whether such circumstances do exist or not the accused, in the case of a general exception, is entitled to be acquitted, or, in the case of special exception, can be convicted only of the minor offence........." In conclusion, Dunkley, J., held as follows : -

(3.) It is on the basis of these principles that it is well-settled in England that the evidence against the accused must be such as to exclude, to a moral certainty, every reasonable doubt about his guilt and if there be any reasonable doubt about this guilt he is entitled to be acquitted, said Iqbal Ahmad. C. J., and continued further : -