A is prosecuted for the murder of B under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution proves the case beyond all reasonable doubts but it cannot prove the case conclusively. Is the accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt and liable to be acquitted?

Question: A is prosecuted for the murder of B under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution proves the case beyond all reasonable doubts but it cannot prove the case conclusively. Is the accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt and liable to be acquitted? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is prosecuted for the murder of B under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution proves the case beyond all reasonable doubts but it cannot prove the case conclusively. Is the accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt and liable to be acquitted? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.]

Answer

Yes, A can be prosecuted for the murder of B because the prosecution has already proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and need not prove the case conclusively.

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that-

Whenever it is provided by the act that the court—

1. “may presume” a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it.
2. “shall presume” a fact, it must regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
3. When one fact is declared by this Act to be “conclusive proof” of another, the court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

With regards to Conclusive proofs, the law has absolute power and shall not allow any proofs contrary to the presumption which means if the facts presumed under conclusive proofs cannot be challenged even if the presumption is challenged on the basis of probative evidence.

On the other hand, May presume is a condition when the court enjoys its discretion power to presume any/ certain/ few facts and recognize it either proved or may ask for corroborative evidence to confirm or reconfirm the presumption set by the court in its discretion.

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a fact or a group of facts may be regarded as proved, until and unless they are disapproved.

Hence may presume are rebuttable presumption but in the present case at hand, the court may presume the guilt of the accused because the guilt of A has already been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the standard of proof in criminal prosecution being beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond a shadow of a doubt, the court can safely presume the guilt of the accused as A has committed the murder of B under section 302, IPC.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X