SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Criminal appeal No. 85, on 16/04/2009, in re: STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs MOHAN LAL, observed as follows : -

QUOTE : The concepts of probability, and the degree of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof.. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J (as His Lordship then was) in STATE OF U.P. vs KRISHAN GOPAL [1998 (4) SCC 302] UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_cra_85]

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

Tags : concepts of probability, reasonable doubt, robust common sense, administration of criminal justice

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS administration of criminal justice, concepts of probability, reasonable doubt, robust common sense

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2003, on 16/04/2009, in re: STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs MOHAN LAL made the following observations: -

QUOTE : Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.

[for full text of the judgement pl visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_cra_85]

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

TAGS : abstract speculation., reasonable doubt, vague apprehensions, reason and common sense

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS abstract speculation., reason and common sense, reasonable doubt, vague apprehensions

The Supreme Court of India while deciding the Crimiinal Appeal No. 85 of 2003, on 16/04/2009, in re: STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs MOHAN LAL, held as follows:-

QUOTE: A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence whichis not establshed by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is hoever, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to PROOF is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to the interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another, a learned author says [see THE MATHENATICS OF PROOF II ; GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, 1979, BY SWEET AND MAXWELL, p.340(342)] :

The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other.

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_cra_85]

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS absolute standard, alleged confession, degree of probability, evidential standard of proof, interdependence of evidence, proof, reasonable doubt, state of mind