SC says culprits being acquitted due to application of principle
Misapplication of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that owing to a “misapplication” of the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, actual culprits manage to find their way out of the clutches of law and asserted that every such instance of acquittal “revolts” against the sense of security of society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system.
While restoring a trial court verdict convicting two accused for raping a minor girl, the apex court said that it often comes across cases where loose acquittals are recorded on the basis of minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies by elevating them to the standard of reasonable doubts.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that courts must be sensitive to the ground realities of society so as to ensure that the intent of law is not suppressed and protections created by the legislature reach the intended persons in their right spirit.
It said not only should no innocent face punishment for something that he has not done, but equally, no culprit should manage an acquittal on the basis of unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure.
“Despite the importance of procedural sanctity, it is always a matter of utter failure for the system as a whole when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the knowledge of the victim and without any control of the victim,” it said.
The bench set aside a September 2024 verdict of the Patna High Court, which acquitted the two accused who were earlier sentenced to life term by a trial court in the case.
The top court delivered its judgement on a plea by the victim’s father challenging the high court order.
The bench said noticeably, the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt” has been misunderstood to mean any and every doubt in the prosecution’s case.
It said often the apex court comes across cases where loose acquittals are recorded based on minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies.
The bench said the underlying foundation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt was that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that they had not done.
“But a flipside of the same, of which we are conscious, is that at times, owing to a misapplication of this principle, actual culprits manage to find their way out of the clutches of law,” it said.
The bench said such misapplication of this principle, resulting in culprits walking free by taking the benefit of doubt, was equally dangerous for society.
“Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolts against the sense of security of the society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system,” the bench said.
The bench said the struggle for sensitivity towards offences against women, children and other marginalised groups passes through various phases of evolution.
“Whereas, the end goal is most desirable, the journey is not always a pleasant one,” it said.
The bench said at times, the victims find themselves pitched against a system “full of insensitive stakeholders” and at other times, the victims find themselves in conflict with the procedural intricacies of the laws in place.
Dealing with the case, it noted that in 2016, a few months after Holi, the victim started feeling unwell and upon examination on July 1, 2016, she was found to be three months pregnant.
She then disclosed that she was raped by the two accused about three-four months ago. An FIR was lodged in Bhojpur district and a chargesheet was filed in the court.
The trial court held both the accused guilty of offence of rape and under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced them to life term.
Later, the high court, while finding infirmities in the prosecution’s case, said the prosecution was unable to prove the case against them.
Dealing with the issue concerning the victim’s age, the top court said courts must remain alive to the socio-economic circumstances of victims, especially those who are based in remote regions of the country.
It said in rural regions, discrepancies in educational and identification documents were not unknown and in such circumstances, courts must be sensitive to the ground realities of the society.
On the issue of appreciation of evidence, the bench said, “There is nothing like perfect evidence in a court and in fact, perfection is often suggestive of tutoring and manufacturing of evidence”.
It said the availability of evidence, as well as its quality, was not open to judgment on any pre-determined parameters.
“For these aspects not only depend upon the quality of investigation but also upon the societal circumstances prevalent in the area of crime,” it said.
The bench said courts must be alive to the state of affairs on the ground and must examine whether the inconsistencies and gaps were properly explained or not.
It also called upon trial courts to be vigilant and cautious in framing charges.
The bench said a trial court does the job of raising the building from scratch, brick by brick and in the performance of this onerous task, some mistakes are quite natural.
“While finding defects in the building, the appellate court must carefully weigh the mistakes and analyse their consequence on the outcome of the trial. We may suffice to observe that not every mistake is fatal,” it said.
While restoring the trial court’s order, the bench directed the convicts to surrender within two weeks.
