RAJ BALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 05th of August, 1991, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1989, convicting the sole -appellant for an offence punishable under Section -364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THIS is an old appeal of the year 1991 and has been on the list for some days with no representation from the side of the appellant. Finally, when the appeal was called up and no one appeared for the appellant, we perused the records with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Having perused the records, we were indeed surprised as to how conviction was at all recorded. We, therefore, decide not to appoint amicus curiae to assist us in the matter as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor very fairly placed before us the depositions and the judgment under appeal.

(3.) SUFFICE to say, we could have ordinarily disposed of the appeal by merely observing that for the facts noted and reasons given in paragraph -12 of the judgment, as quoted above, there could not have been any conviction. This is so because what the Trial Court forgot was that it was trying a criminal case and it is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof and in absence of proof, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is the elementary difference between appreciation of evidence in a criminal case and a civil case. In a criminal case, the accused has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a civil case the case is to be decided upon preponderance of evidence. As noted above by the Trial Court itself, there was only grave suspicion. Regrettably, suspicion can never be ground for conviction in absence of proof of the crime having been committed. However, we would not like to fall in the same error as committed by the Trial Court, we would appraise the evidence afresh, which would also show the miscarriage of justice in the present case.