KALI RAM versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 24-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

722 
KALI RAM 
v. 
STATE OF IDMACHAL PRADESH 
September 24, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA, A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SAHAIUA, JJ.] 
Criminal trial-Burden of proof-Benefit of doubt-Principles governing. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)-8. 162-Scope of. 
One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our 
system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraign-
ed as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is re-
butted 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 
gvilt 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 are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the 
~uilt of the accused but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecutioa 
to proTe the existence of facts which have to be present before the presump-
tion can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist 
1ho court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event. 
•e for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such Casei 
upon the accused is not as heaT)' as is normally upon the prosecuticn to prove 
the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent 
with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even thougk 
it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquit-
tal. [733 H; 734 A-C) 
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of 
justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced 
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to hi& 
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 
This principle has a special relevance in cases where the guilt of the accused is 
rought to be established by circumstan:ial evidence. Rule bas accordingly been 
laid down that unless the evidence adduced in ~he case i3 consistent only with 
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his 
innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the 
accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable 
doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of 
doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the. accused should be rea-
sonable, it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is 
incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid 
to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of 
doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused bv resort to surmises, con-
jectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by this Court in the case of 
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (Crt. .A. No. 7 of 1972 d/ August 6, 1973) a 
criminal trial is not liked a fairy tale wherein one is free to give tlight to one's 
imagination and phantasy. Jn arriving at the conciusion abou• the guilt of the 
accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the 
eTidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsir worth and tb~ animus 
of witnesses. 
Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its 
own facts. A1though the benefit of every reasonable doub+ 
sh~ulr1 be given 
to the accused the courts should not at the same time reiect evidence which 
ie ex facie trustworthy or grounds which aro fanciful or in the nature of conjec-
..-res. [734,.....6-H; 735 A-Dl 
It Dl>eds all the same to be re-emphasised that if a reasonable doubt arises 
regarding the guilt of the accused. the benf"fit of that canno• be withhotrl from 
the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding the benefit bo-
caliSe the acquittal might hue an impact noon the law and order ~ituation 
or create adverse reaction in societv or am"ngst those membars of the society 
who believe the accused to be euifty. The suilt of the accused has to be 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
KALI RAM V. H.P. STATE (Khanna, ].) 
723 
.ad)udged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be pilty 
but whether his guilt bas been established by the evidence brought on record. 
Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the 
gu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.